Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel, along with 20 colleagues across the country, claiming Long-standing federal laws protecting Native American adoptions should be upheld.
44-year-old Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides guaranteed basic protection to Indigenous children, their families and tribal communities. This was done to prevent the unwarranted removal of native children, a practice formerly widespread in the United States.
But the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear four cases that could invalidate the ICWA this fall. collapsed or significantly changed. Such a move could have profound implications for tribal sovereignty as a whole.
“In the 40 years since ICWA was enacted, ICWA has improved the lives of countless Native American children by keeping them in their tribes and communities,” Nessel said in a statement Thursday. The state has its own version of this law, the Michigan Indian Family Protection Act (MIFPA), and I pledge that Michigan will continue to protect the well-being of Native American children, their parents, and their tribes. increase.”
Amicus brief submitted to Harland vs Blackeen It was led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The Confederacy includes Bonta, Nessel, and Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, D.C. Wisconsin, District of Columbia.
“The protections provided by the federal ICWA must be upheld to preserve the cultural identity of the Native American community. ” said Nessel.
Advocates fear federal law protecting native adoptions could be overturned by Supreme Court
Harland vs Blackeen It is one of four related cases scheduled for simultaneous trial in the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. In addition, Cherokee Nation vs. Blackeen, blackeen vs harland When texas vs harland.
A central issue in the lawsuit was a constitutional issue raised by a non-Native Texas foster parent, and the ICWA argued that Native children should be placed with Indigenous families or other members of their tribes. By prioritizing, they argue, they perpetuate racism.
other tribal petitioners of Cherokee Nation vs. Blackeen Includes Oneida Nation, Quino Indian Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. All advocate continuation of his ICWA, but the State of Texas and the Blackeen family are against it.
In an Amicus brief signed by Nessel last week, the coalition said the ICWA is an important tool for protecting Indigenous children and promoting cooperation between states and tribes, and that the law and its implementing rules are constitutional. claim.
- The Act effectively exercised Congressional powers over tribal affairs in response to the unjust removals that endangered relations with Native American tribes and threatened their existence.
- The statutory provisions do not violate the “anti-recruitment” doctrine, which prohibits Congress from issuing direct orders to state governments.
- The law does not violate equal protection by establishing priorities for adoption and foster care placement of native children.
The coalition also emphasizes in the Amicus Brief that the United States has a long history of unjustly separating Indigenous children from their families. Its history includes centuries of federal policy to place native children in residential schools in India. Michigan — it attempted to assimilate them into white culture and strip children of their tribal identity.
Nessel Before Signed the Amicus Brief on the two incidents in October 2021, Harland vs Blackeen When Cherokee Nation vs. Blackeen.
Morning headlines delivered to your inbox