Estimated reading time: 2m 40s
|
| |
|
Talk about another surprise from the Supreme Court! Last week, SCOTUS upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act by a 7-2 majority. The case, Haaland v. Brackeen, had many Native American rights groups on edge ahead of the decision about the law, fearing the conservative court would gut it and open the floodgates for Native children to be placed outside of Native homes for adoption or foster care. Instead, the Court left the 45-year-old law intact, prompting a proverbial sigh of relief for tribes across the country. |
|
|
(Photo credit: Associated Press) |
The Indian Child Welfare Act was signed into law in the late-70s to stem the tide of Native children being placed in foster care or put up for adoption outside of their communities, often with white families. That practice was a continuation of centuries of systemic removal of Native children to be placed in residential boarding schools or other institutions to forcibly assimilate them to white American society. According to some estimates, before the ICWA was enacted, up to 35% of Native children were being forcibly removed from their families and tribes and placed in non-Native homes which had no connection to Native communities or traditions. |
(Photo credit: Associated Press) |
One of the key arguments made by the Brackeens — the Texas couple who filed the claim after attempting to adopt the biological sister of their adopted Navajo son — and the states seeking to unravel the ICWA is that it establishes racial preferences for foster care placements and adoption proceedings for Native children in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Under the law, priority for placement of a Native child goes to a member of the child’s extended family, then a member of their tribe, and failing that, other Native American families. Placement in a non-Native household is considered a last resort under this scheme. Tribal leaders and legal scholars argued before the Court that tribes are political entities, thus negating the equal protection claims. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of the Equal Protection Clause in this decision, which may leave an opening for future cases to be decided on that matter. For now, Native groups are marking this ruling as a win for tribal sovereignty. |
How to keep up with what's happening
|
|
|
One more thing before I go! Every week in the Reckon Report, we try to take you below the surface of the news. One major news event on the horizon is the return of student loan payments. The “will they or won’t they?” of loan forgiveness and the Supreme Court is hanging over our heads like a threat, while the recently passed debt ceiling deal in Congress included a promise to restart student loan payments in September. Resuming loan payments is going to disrupt the lives of millions of people who are still navigating the financial uncertainty of the last few years in the face of inflation, rising costs of living, supply chain disruptions and a shaky job market. If this resonates with you, we want to hear about it. Take a few minutes to answer our survey questions. Responses can be submitted anonymously if you want. Thank you for helping guide our coverage of the student debt crisis. Got something you want me to dive into next week? Let me know at avelasquez@reckonmedia.com.
That's all I've got for this week!
Thanks for reckoning with me, Aria |
|
|
|
