Here are updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Stitt, now captioned Wichita & Affiliated Tribes v. Stitt (W.D. Okla.):
Prior post here.
Here are updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Stitt, now captioned Wichita & Affiliated Tribes v. Stitt (W.D. Okla.):
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Cherokee Nation v. Dept, of the Interior (D.D.C.):
Prior post here.
Here is the opinion in A+ Government Solutions LLC v. Controller of Maryland:
Here are the appellate materials in Bedford v. Nowlin (10th Cir.):
Here are the materials in Woods v. Nunn (W.D. Okla.):
Here are the materials related to the application for a stay by the State of Oklahoma in Oklahoma v. Bosse:
Lower court materials here.
The Indian Law Clinic represented the Chickasaw Nation in this case.
In their petitions, the parties asked us to address whether (1) ICWA requires
a district court to hold an enrollment hearing in circumstances like those present
here as a prerequisite to the termination of parental rights; (2) a district court can
order the Department to enroll children over a parent’s objection; and (3) the
division below erred in reversing the district court’s judgment rather than
ordering a limited remand.All of the parties before us, and the Nation itself, agree that the division
erred in requiring an enrollment hearing. Because we perceive no statutory basis
for such a hearing, and because such a hearing conflicts with the Nation’s exclusive
right to determine who is an enrolled citizen, we agree that the division erred in
requiring such a hearing.
With respect to the second issue presented, we note that neither parent
objected to the children’s enrollment. Accordingly, the issue as presented in the
petition for certiorari is not properly before us. In their briefs, however, the parties
appear to construe the question presented more broadly, namely, as asking us todecide whether the Department has an obligation to assist children who are
eligible for enrollment in becoming enrolled citizens of a tribal nation. Although
the issue is an important one and may call for legislative action, we conclude that
under current law, the Department has no such obligation. In certain
circumstances, however, it might well be the better practice for the Department to
advise on and perhaps assist with the enrollment process.
Here are the materials in Bench v. State:
Here are the materials in Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. de la Vega [formerly Zinke, then Bernhardt, and now should be Haaland] (W.D. Okla.):
Colorado Gazette article on the case here.
Write up by MSU on the case here
When the Logan County, Colorado Department of Human Services removed two infant twin girls from the custody of their mother, the mother told the department that their father might have Chickasaw heritage. The department sent notice to the Chickasaw Nation, which responded that the children were eligible for citizenship and sent the necessary tribal citizenship forms to the department.
The Chickasaw Nation never got those forms back.To all appearances, the agency simply ignored the notice from the Chickasaw Nation, and the Nation received no communication from the State. The State filed to terminate the mother’s parental rights and only at that point did Logan County disclose to the juvenile court that the children were eligible for enrollment in the Chickasaw Nation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.