Here are available materials for In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission’s Approval of Running Aces Casino Hotel & Racetrack’s Request to Amend its Plan of Operation:
Evenly Split Minnesota SCT Affirms State Authorization of Racinos
Minnesota Supreme Court
Minnesota SCT Reprimands Attorney for Misconduct before Mille Lac Ojibwe Courts under Reciprocal Attorney Discipline Rule
Minnesota SCT Justice Anne McKeig to Visit MSU ILPC This Thursday
Minnesota SCT Justice Anne McKeig to Visit MLaw This Friday
Justice McKeig will address the MLaw Native American Law Students Association and the Michigan Tribal-State-Federal Judicial Forum.
Minnesota SCT Rejects Mille Lacs County Officials’ Demand for State to Defend Mille Lacs Ojibwe Reservation Boundaries Suit
Minnesota SCT Rules McGirt Inapplicable in Minnesota
It’s ‘cuz of PL280 (and, yeah, I know you’re out there Red Lakers, so chill). Here is the opinion in Martin v. State of Minnesota:
Minnesota SCT Confirms Authority of Tribal Police to Detain and Expel Non-Indians from Rez
Here is the opinion in State v. Thompson:
The court’s syllabus:
When, on the Red Lake Reservation, a non-Indian violates a Minnesota law under circumstances where the non-Indian is subject to the State of Minnesota’s criminal jurisdiction, Red Lake Band police officers are authorized to detain and expel the non-Indian from the Reservation.
Minnesota SCT Refuses to Grant Credit to Prisoner for Time Spent in Red Lake Tribal Jail Unless that Time Was Spent for a State Offense
Here is the opinion in State v. Roy:
Minnesota Supreme Court Rule Recognizing Tribal Court Orders
Over 15 years ago, the Minnesota Tribal Court/State Court Forum petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to adopt a robust rule for recognition of tribal court orders. Due in large part to public concern about the efficacy of tribal courts, the supreme court adopted a more cautious rule, one that provided limited guidance and delegated excessive discretion to district courts. The consequences were delays and inconsistencies in the recognition process.
In 2016, the Forum petitioned the supreme court to amend the rule, arguing that any concerns about today’s tribal courts are unfounded. It asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to enhance the rule and extend due deference and respect to tribal courts. The petition received overwhelming support from state court judges, local attorney associations, and the national Indian law community. In a 4-2 decision on July 2, 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Forum’s petition with minor amendments.
Thank you to all of the state and tribal court judges of the Forum for their leadership and thanks also to Peter Rademacher (Hogen Adams PLLC) for his tireless work as scrivener of the Forum.
ICWA QEW Opinion in the Minnesota Supreme Court
The question of what Qualified Expert Testimony (QEW) actually is under ICWA comes up all the time. The Minnesota Supreme Court did a pretty deep dive into what it means in terms of termination of parental rights, and concludes,
Read straightforwardly, the statute provides that to terminate parental rights, a district court must determine that “continued custody of the child by the parent . . . is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” 25 U.S.C. 1912(f). This determination must be supported by evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and part of the supporting evidence must be QEW testimony. Id. The statute is unambiguous.
. . .
The parents . . suggest that the statute requires that the QEW testify specifically that “continued custody . . . is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f). . . . If Congress wanted to impose a requirement that the expert utter a “magic phrase,” it could have done so. But as written, neither ICWA nor MIFPA require a specific QEW opinion that “continued custody . . . is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage.” 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f); Minn. Stat. § 260.771, subd. 6(a). S
…
Accordingly, we conclude that in a termination proceeding governed by ICWA and MIFPA, a court cannot terminate parental rights unless it determines that evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that continued parental custody of the child is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. That determination must be supported by QEW testimony.
Because the QEW admitted on the stand that she focused most of her testimony and affidavits on the mother (who was a tribal member) and not the father (who not an enrolled tribal member in any tribe), the court held her testimony did not support the termination as to father.
I get questions pretty frequently about QEW, QEW training, and whether a person should be a QEW. My answer is almost always the same–a QEW must be comfortable stating that the parental rights should be terminated, or that these children should be put in foster care. That information is what is required by statute, and why the state (or party seeking removal/termination) must put a QEW on the stand. The QEW is ultimately there to testify against the parents, regardless of any other testimony they may proffer.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.