Supreme Court takes up dispute over Native American adoption law

Why does it always seem to be Texas? So, they overturned Roe and now they want to go back to kidnapping children off tribal lands and place them with non tribal members? Sorry, but after all the US has done, after ignoring treaty after treaty, stealing all of the land and placing them in concentration camps after nearly starving them to death....leave them be....they have sovereignty over their own tribal affairs.


The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to resolve a dispute over the legality of decades-old federal requirements that give Native American families priority to adopt Native American children in a challenge pursued by a group of non-Native adoptive families and the state of Texas.

The justices will review lower court decisions that declared several key parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 unconstitutional. President Joe Biden’s administration and several Native American tribes are defending the law, which aims to reinforce tribal connections by placing Native American children with relatives or within their communities.


The U.S. Congress passed the 1978 law in response to concern over child welfare practices that had resulted in the separation of large numbers of Native American children from their families through adoption or foster placement, usually in non-Native American homes. Tribes and Native American advocacy groups have maintained that the child welfare law helps preserve their culture and family connections.

It's almost funny how comically evil this is. Like, they are putting active effort in to make the world decidedly worse. Incredible really.

Nomad4Ever said:

It's almost funny how comically evil this is. Like, they are putting active effort in to make the world decidedly worse. Incredible really.

Click to expand...

'yes, we should all be very worried, because after they are done with them they are coming for the rest.

I support Native American children being kept within their own community if that is truly in the kids best interest and there are benefits to being raised fully immersed in your culture.

I also oppose any laws that discriminate based on race.

We are talking about children and their well-being. I’m no sure a blanket one size fits all approach is ever going to be appropriate. Each case needs to be evaluated on the individual merits. For some kids staying within the family may be best, in other cases the best chance the child has is to be removed from a toxic family environment. Supporting the reversal will be painted as wanting to steal kids. Supporting keeping the policy in place will be painted as supporting racist polices that prevent children the opportunity for a better future.

I really don’t know how I feel about this yet.

Chillfolks said:

I support Native American children being kept within their own community if that is truly in the kids best interest and there are benefits to being raised fully immersed in your culture.

I also oppose any laws that discriminate based on race.

We are talking about children and their well-being. I’m no sure a blanket one size fits all approach is ever going to be appropriate. Each case needs to be evaluated on the individual merits. For some kids staying within the family may be best, in other cases the best chance the child has is to be removed from a toxic family environment. Supporting the reversal will be painted as wanting to steal kids. Supporting keeping the policy in place will be painted as supporting racist polices that prevent children the opportunity for a better future.

I really don’t know how I feel about this yet.

Click to expand...

My thoughts are the US government needs to keep their hands off of tribal affairs. Children are still removed in abuse cases on the rez, but the rez has jurisdiction over placement and the process after that.

ClaraD said:

My thoughts are the US government needs to keep their hands off of tribal affairs. Children are still removed in abuse cases on the rez, but the rez has jurisdiction over placement and the process after that.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but I am not sure adoption and fostering of children simply a tribal affair. I think we both can agree the best solution is putting the child with the family that can offer the most love and support.

Chillfolks said:

I tend to agree, but I am not sure adoption and fostering of children simply a tribal affair. I think we both can agree the best solution is putting the child with the family that can offer the most love and support.

Click to expand...

It is akin to the US telling Mexico they can waltz in and take children from families and adopt them out, because they believe the children are abused. This is a sovereignty issue. What goes on inside tribal lands is a tribal affair, handled by tribal government and courts.

ClaraD said:

'yes, we should all be very worried, because after they are done with them they are coming for the rest.

Click to expand...

Next year sometime when the look at Moore v Harper

Arlette said:

Next year sometime when the look at Moore v Harper

Click to expand...

Yep, and Republicans admitted in open court their line drawing was to prevent Blacks and Latinos from voting or gaining a majority vote.

i can't wait until they revisit interracial marriage.

CaughtInThe said:

i can't wait until they revisit interracial marriage.

Click to expand...

Notice that Clarence left that one out of his hopes to revisit.

ClaraD said:

It is akin to the US telling Mexico they can waltz in and take children from families and adopt them out, because they believe the children are abused. This is a sovereignty issue. What goes on inside tribal lands is a tribal affair, handled by tribal government and courts.

Click to expand...

I will admit I do not know the specific details of the case. If the agency handling the adoptions fostering is on the reservation then I would agree it’s a reservation issue. If the agency is off reservation lands then it’s not just a reservation issue IMO. When it comes to fostering a child if the support is all from reservation funds agian it’s a reservation issue. If US federal Tax dollars are used then that changes things.

Agian I hope we agree the best family to place a child in is the one who can offer the most love and support to the child.

ClaraD said:

Notice that Clarence left that one out of his hopes to revisit.

Click to expand...

yup

CaughtInThe said:

i can't wait until they revisit interracial marriage.

Click to expand...

No rule of law, no constitutional right is safe. The court abandoned stare decisis and promotes the religious right's agenda

Chillfolks said:

I will admit I do not know the specific details of the case. If the agency handling the adoptions fostering is on the reservation then I would agree it’s a reservation issue. If the agency is off reservation lands then it’s not just a reservation issue IMO. When it comes to fostering a child if the support is all from reservation funds agian it’s a reservation issue. If US federal Tax dollars are used then that changes things.

Agian I hope we agree the best family to place a child in is the one who can offer the most love and support to the child.

Click to expand...

ICWA was created in 1978 by the federal government to re-establish tribal authority over the adoption of Native American children. The goal of the Act was to strengthen and preserve Native American family structure and culture. Studies conducted in advance of ICWA’s drafting showed that between 25% and 35% of all Native children were being removed from their home by state child welfare and private adoption agencies. Of those, 85% were placed with non-Native families, even when fit and willing relatives were available. ICWA was established as a safeguard that requires placement cases involving Native American children be heard in tribal courts, if possible, and permits a child’s tribe to be involved in state court proceedings.

(they were literally stealing Native American Indian children when the ICWA became law. I know, I was one of those children. I was living with my grandparents. My grandfather is Native American and Latino mixed. He lived and still lives on the reservation. I was removed from my family in 1973. My grandfather wasn't abusive, in fact, he was a loving, wonderful person. My parents had abandoned me though, and, the child welfare authorities thought I should be removed. My father also was not considered competent, because he was divorced and wasn't remarried....and I was female. They did not even bother to consider my grandparents....it took them from 1973 until 1981 to get me back. So, if I am a bit aggressive on this issue, you will have to forgive me. It has taken me months before I could even post this without seething. I retained Spanish, because I had friends who spoke Spanish. I did not retain my tribal language. I wasn't permitted to speak it and did not have access to anyone who did.
The ICWA gave authority to the tribal courts and they are entirely handled within the courts. There are exceptions if the person lives outside the reservation. I prefer not to talk about this very much in reference to me...but the tribal courts have sovereignty and the Supreme Court is wrong as well as the lower court

ClaraD said:

ICWA was created in 1978 by the federal government to re-establish tribal authority over the adoption of Native American children. The goal of the Act was to strengthen and preserve Native American family structure and culture. Studies conducted in advance of ICWA’s drafting showed that between 25% and 35% of all Native children were being removed from their home by state child welfare and private adoption agencies. Of those, 85% were placed with non-Native families, even when fit and willing relatives were available. ICWA was established as a safeguard that requires placement cases involving Native American children be heard in tribal courts, if possible, and permits a child’s tribe to be involved in state court proceedings.

(they were literally stealing Native American Indian children when the ICWA became law. I know, I was one of those children. I was living with my grandparents. My grandfather is Native American and Latino mixed. He lived and still lives on the reservation. I was removed from my family in 1973. My grandfather wasn't abusive, in fact, he was a loving, wonderful person. My parents had abandoned me though, and, the child welfare authorities thought I should be removed. My father also was not considered competent, because he was divorced and wasn't remarried....and I was female. They did not even bother to consider my grandparents....it took them from 1973 until 1981 to get me back. So, if I am a bit aggressive on this issue, you will have to forgive me. It has taken me months before I could even post this without seething. I retained Spanish, because I had friends who spoke Spanish. I did not retain my tribal language. I wasn't permitted to speak it and did not have access to anyone who did.
The ICWA gave authority to the tribal courts and they are entirely handled within the courts. There are exceptions if the person lives outside the reservation. I prefer not to talk about this very much in reference to me...but the tribal courts have sovereignty and the Supreme Court is wrong as well as the lower court

Click to expand...

I can understand how your personal connection to the issue creates a stronger emotional connection to one side of the debate. I will respect this and end the debate as I don’t see it being productive and could end with infractions issued when emotions run high.

Chillfolks said:

I can understand how your personal connection to the issue creates a stronger emotional connection to one side of the debate. I will respect this and end the debate as I don’t see it being productive and could end with infractions issued when emotions run high.

Click to expand...

Oh, I am pretty good at avoiding infractions. Yes, for me, my emotions run high on this issue. I will be 51 this month. I have the assistance of the internet, a few bits of information and the support of my husband in finding out who I am and who all of my relatives are. I found interesting stuff, even further back, but that will take travel and research. Now to the subject...

the US has a horrific history of trying to take back their promises made to tribes. They need to learn to be held to those promises they make. Tribes have their own governments, their own police forces, their own prisons, their own child welfare agencies.

ClaraD said:

ICWA was created in 1978 by the federal government to re-establish tribal authority over the adoption of Native American children. The goal of the Act was to strengthen and preserve Native American family structure and culture. Studies conducted in advance of ICWA’s drafting showed that between 25% and 35% of all Native children were being removed from their home by state child welfare and private adoption agencies. Of those, 85% were placed with non-Native families, even when fit and willing relatives were available. ICWA was established as a safeguard that requires placement cases involving Native American children be heard in tribal courts, if possible, and permits a child’s tribe to be involved in state court proceedings.

(they were literally stealing Native American Indian children when the ICWA became law. I know, I was one of those children. I was living with my grandparents. My grandfather is Native American and Latino mixed. He lived and still lives on the reservation. I was removed from my family in 1973. My grandfather wasn't abusive, in fact, he was a loving, wonderful person. My parents had abandoned me though, and, the child welfare authorities thought I should be removed. My father also was not considered competent, because he was divorced and wasn't remarried....and I was female. They did not even bother to consider my grandparents....it took them from 1973 until 1981 to get me back. So, if I am a bit aggressive on this issue, you will have to forgive me. It has taken me months before I could even post this without seething. I retained Spanish, because I had friends who spoke Spanish. I did not retain my tribal language. I wasn't permitted to speak it and did not have access to anyone who did.
The ICWA gave authority to the tribal courts and they are entirely handled within the courts. There are exceptions if the person lives outside the reservation. I prefer not to talk about this very much in reference to me...but the tribal courts have sovereignty and the Supreme Court is wrong as well as the lower court

Click to expand...

Whether it's personal or not, this court has to be dismantled. One way or another, they have to go

Chillfolks said:

I can understand how your personal connection to the issue creates a stronger emotional connection to one side of the debate. I will respect this and end the debate as I don’t see it being productive and could end with infractions issued when emotions run high.

Click to expand...

Chill, as far back as the Articles of the Confederation, the sovereignty of tribes has been established. The treaty of New Echota also established that. The treaty promised that the Cherokee would have their own government and that the tribe would remain free forever from state sovereignties Dec 29, 1835.

Here is what Justice Gorsuch said most recently, in another case that is a travesty.

Tribes are not private organizations with state boundaries. Their reservations are not glorified private campgrounds. Tribes are sovereigns. The preemption rule applicable to them is exactly the opposite of the normal rule. Tribal sovereignty means that the criminal laws of the states can have no force on tribal members within tribal bounds unless and until Congress clearly ordains otherwise.

Richard Nixon Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions. (July 8, 1970)


In the Articles of Confederation, the founders established that tribes remained free to govern their own internal affairs without state interference. It established only Congress could change that.

Chief Justice Marshall Worcester v Georgia 1832. Georgia enjoyed no lawful authority to govern the territory of a separate sovereign.

US v Lara (2004)
the Court found that the right to prosecute nonmember Indians is inherent in the sovereignty of Native American tribes. Congress may constitutionally choose to restrict this right, but its choice not to (or its choice to relax earlier-imposed restrictions) is different from a delegation of federal prosecutorial power. Prosecuting a crime under both federal and tribal law, therefore, does not violate the Constitution.

So, unless or until Congress makes a law ceding that authority to the states....they enjoy no said authority. This of the rails court from the Taliban doesn't change the fact that we need to respect and honor our laws and promises.

ClaraD said:

Why does it always seem to be Texas? So, they overturned Roe and now they want to go back to kidnapping children off tribal lands and place them with non tribal members?

Click to expand...

No. This case is about what happens to children who are in the State systems. The background of this case involves a a boy and girl who were removed from the custody of their mother by the State because of her drug addiction (she lived off-reservation). The boy was fostered by a white family who wanted to adopt him, but the State denied that request because of the Indian Child Welfare Act, claiming essentially that the Navajo get first dibs on the child.

The Navajo Tribe found a family willing to adopt him but, in the midst of the litigation, that arrangement fell through and the white foster family was allowed to adopt him. And this is where things really start to get crazy. The white family also wants to adopt the boy’s sister to keep the siblings together. The Navajo don’t want the boy, but they did find a great aunt who is willing to take the girl. So because of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the girl hast to go live with an impoverished old bag on the reservation instead of being reunited with her brother in a relatively well-off white household.

This case is more than just about Equal Protection. It goes to the heart of what arrangement is in the best interest of the children and whether or not the race of adoptive family overrides all other considerations.

What a shocker! Liberals finally discovering that all their "inclusion" claptrap may be a double edged sword.

Napoleon said:

No. This case is about what happens to children who are in the State systems. The background of this case involves a a boy and girl who were removed from the custody of their mother by the State because of her drug addiction (she lived off-reservation). The boy was fostered by a white family who wanted to adopt him, but the State denied that request because of the Indian Child Welfare Act, claiming essentially that the Navajo get first dibs on the child.

The Navajo Tribe found a family willing to adopt him but, in the midst of the litigation, that arrangement fell through and the white foster family was allowed to adopt him. And this is where things really start to get crazy. The white family also wants to adopt the boy’s sister to keep the siblings together. The Navajo don’t want the boy, but they did find a great aunt who is willing to take the girl. So because of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the girl hast to go live with an impoverished old bag on the reservation instead of being reunited with her brother in a relatively well-off white household.

This case is more than just about Equal Protection. It goes to the heart of what arrangement is in the best interest of the children and whether or not the race of adoptive family overrides all other considerations.

Click to expand...

the state has no authority to act.....Congress hasn't made any law giving them that authority. Also, I don't care if she is poor or wealthy...she is a blood relative. She should have first rights to raise the children if deemed appropriate. I note your racist assertion that she is poor and an old bag, because she is Navajo.

ClaraD said:

the state has no authority to act.....Congress hasn't made any law giving them that authority. Also, I don't care if she is poor or wealthy...she is a blood relative. She should have first rights to raise the children if deemed appropriate. I note your racist assertion that she is poor and an old bag, because she is Navajo.

Click to expand...

The State absolutely has the authority to act because the mother and children did not live on the reservation. She’s a poor old bag because she’s poor and the child’s great aunt. Splitting the siblings and forcing the girl to live with that poor old bag is not in the children’s best interest. The only racists here are those who assert that race should override all other considerations.

ClaraD said:

Notice that Clarence left that one out of his hopes to revisit.

Click to expand...

Why hasn't he been confronted about that by the media?

I don't know the politics of the court on this issue, but I'd say something important is that the radical right on the court are groomed #1 around plutocratic goals on issues like allowing money to control politics, and limiting the government's and American people's power, and secondarily on Republican electoral goals like abortion. It's not clear why this issue would be a priority for them. It might be that there is some related ideology they have that leads them to a position on this issue, but I wouldn't assume that. I think they can rule in a reasonable way when Republican interests aren't involved. They often/usually don't, because of the radical ideologies they've adopted, but they can. On the other hand, the fact four justices agreed to take this, and that the radical 6 are usually in lockstep, suggests a good chance they do have some reason to rule the wrong way.