Fifth Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Brackeen v. Bernhardt [ICWA]

Here

Tribal Intervenor Statement here:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 7, 2019

Contact: Tania Mercado tmercado@skdknick.com

Native American Tribes Continue to Stand with Indian Children and Families Following Court Decision to Rehear Fifth Circuit Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Morongo Band of Mission Indians Chairman Robert Martin, Oneida Nation Chairman Tehassi Hill and Quinault Indian Nation President Fawn Sharp issued the following statement in response to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to rehear a challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act en banc:

“We never want to go back to the days when Indian children were ripped away from their families and stripped of their heritage. We continue to believe that the Fifth Circuit decision affirming the constitutionality of ICWA was the right decision. While it is unfortunate that the attacks on this critical law continue, we are confident that the court will once again uphold the constitutionality of ICWA, as courts have repeatedly done over the past 40 years. ICWA provides a process for determining the best interests of Indian children in the adoption and foster care systems, which is why it is overwhelmingly supported across the political spectrum. We remain devoted in our efforts to defend ICWA because our number one priority remains fighting for the wellbeing, health and safety of children and families.”

In 2017, individual plaintiffs Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, a couple from Texas, along with the state attorneys general in Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana, sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and its now-former Secretary Ryan Zinke to challenge ICWA. The Morongo, Quinault, Oneida and Cherokee tribes intervened as defendants in the case Brackeen v. Bernhardt.

In October 2018, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas struck down much of ICWA. Defendants appealed the lower court’s decision and asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision. Last December, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay requested by the defendants, putting a hold on the ruling. In March 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments from plaintiffs and defendants in the Brackeen case.

On August 9, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the Indian Child Welfare Act is constitutional and serves the best interests of children and families. On October 1, 2019, plaintiffs in Brackeen v. Bernhardt chose to continue their attacks on Indian children and tribal families and requested an en banc rehearing before the Fifth Circuit.

There is broad, bipartisan support against this misguided attack on a law that is crucial for protecting the well-being of Indian children and Indian sovereignty. A total of 21 attorneys general, representing a broad range of states, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants, arguing that ICWA is an appropriate exercise of Congress’s authority to legislate in the field of Indian affairs and does not violate the Tenth Amendment or equal protection laws. The Trump administration has also reiterated its support for ICWA, tribal sovereignty and the safety of Indian children.

An additional 325 tribes, 57 tribal organizations, members of Congress, Indian law and constitutional law scholars, and 30 leading child welfare organizations have also filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the defendants.

For additional information on this case and the Indian Child Welfare Act please visit: http://www.ProtectIndianKids.com.

###

Texas and Prospective Adoptive Parents File Constitutional Challenge to ICWA and Regulations

Complaint here (northern district of Texas).

Additional documents will be posted here.

Plaintiffs thus bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief and pray that this court:

(1) vacate and set aside the Final Rule;

(2) declare that Sections 1901–1923 and 1951–1952 of ICWA violate the Constitution;

(3) declare that Section 1915 of ICWA violates the Constitution;

(4) enjoin the defendants from implementing or administering Sections 1901–1923 and 1951–1952 of ICWA; and

(5) enjoin the defendants from implementing or administering Section 1915 of ICWA.

Kickapoo v. Texas Cert Petition

The petition is here. This case concerns the validity of25 CFR Part 291, the procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior to act as a “Seminole fix.”

There is no serious chance the Court will grant cert in this case, unless the United States also files a petition. Even then, this is a likely case of first impression, a death knell for cert petitions.

Really, I should get out of the certiorari prediction business….

Indian Frauds: “Kaweah Indian Nation”

From the Lincoln Journal Star:

A Texas judge issued a permanent injunction Monday prohibiting an unrecognized American Indian tribe and its self-proclaimed chief from selling tribal memberships in an alleged scam to defraud illegal immigrants by falsely claiming the documents would provide protection from deportation.

District Judge Noe Gonzalez ruled that Malcolm Webber and his Wichita-based Kaweah Indian Nation by default admitted the allegations in a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Gonzalez issued the ruling because the tribe and Webber failed to answer the lawsuit filed in August alleging they violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The lawsuit contended that the tribe sold memberships for up to $400 per person to immigrants by saying that members could get a Social Security number. The lawsuit also alleged that immigrants were told they would be entitled to receive U.S. citizenship once the tribe was federally recognized.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs ruled in 1984 that the Kaweah group had no historical link to American Indian tribes and that Webber is not an Indian.

Here is a link to the BAR’s final notice of denial of Kaweah’s petition for federal recognition.

Texas v. United States Materials (Corrected)

Here are the briefs in the Texas v. United States case re: the Class III Procedures.

Brief of Appellant

United States Brief

Kickapoo Brief

Reply Brief

The opinion is here: Opinion