You must log in or register to comment.

TigerBasket t1_ivg5lu9 wrote

I'm confident the Supreme Court will make the worst decision possible on this case


Robbotlove t1_ivg6pz1 wrote

depends. if your goal is to hurt people as much as possible then it'd be the best decision possible.


mohammedibnakar t1_ivgh4q5 wrote

Gorsuch has historically sided with the liberal wing of the court on matters related to Native Americans so I could actually see this going either way.


214ObstructedReverie t1_ivgiyo7 wrote

It'll be 5-4 in favor of whatever fucks over Native Americans.

They trashed McGirt immediately after they got to replace RBG with the crazy cult lady.


chiseledarrow t1_ivglq6x wrote

McGirt didn't hurt the tribes though. It strengthened the argument that Congress and the states have to abide by treaties and agreements signed ages ago.


214ObstructedReverie t1_ivgnkmm wrote

Right, because we had five justices that agreed, the four liberals plus Gorsuch.

Now, we're down to three liberals plus Gorsuch, and as a result, we get rulings like Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.


greeneggzN t1_ivi3ws0 wrote

They’re referencing Castro v Huerta in which the ignored precedence, including certain aspects of McGirt, to dial back tribal sovereignty in their own territories. Gorsuch wrote the dissent on that one and was not very happy.


artfulorpheus t1_ivig6gr wrote

"Not happy" might be an understatement. He saw McGirt as a career defining achievement and seeing it overturned by his peers made him furious. Not enough to, you know, actuallydo anything but enough to write one of the most angry dissents put to pen. Thing about Gorsuch is that he's actually drank the Federalist Society kool-aid and thinks he is impartial and in an impartial system, unlike Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and beer boy.


lawbotamized t1_ivgmxcl wrote

Gorsuch has been more pro-tribe than the liberal wing of the court historically has been.


1LizardWizard t1_ivhdvh2 wrote

Probably gonna pull some shit like with Roe and say that there is no historical precedent for giving native Americans welfare and therefore it is unconstitutional….


WyrdHarper t1_ivig7ci wrote

Oh there is. Not that it makes much of a difference.

There’s Cherokee Nation vs Georgia (1831) and Worcester vs Georgia (1832) where the supreme court ruled that the government could not forcibly evict 15000 or so people whose families had been living in “Georgia” for generations. Andrew Jackson then proceeded to ignore that and thus started the trail of tears.

Honestly at this point it wouldn’t surprise me if they decided to overrule the 1879 ruling that First Americans were “persons”


greeneggzN t1_ivi46kh wrote

The thing is that ICWA is not preferential treatment based on race, it’s about nation to nation agreements and special political/citizen status of tribal members that allows laws and policies like ICWA to exist. If ICWA is struck down it will likely have a domino affect in the realm of Indian law


Art-Zuron t1_ivhkfc8 wrote

Well, they're not wrong really... sadly. (welfare as in respect and care and not genociding them)


1LizardWizard t1_ivhmt9w wrote

Hah. Gosh I didn’t even think about that wordplay. Rather macabre…


PacmanIncarnate t1_ivkd0vn wrote

“Supreme Court today decided the case by stating that the child in question should be euthanized for the good of the foster parents and Native American population. Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion appears to rely heavily on 19th century writings on Manifest Destiny, as well as, inexplicably, a full 3 pages on ‘what Columbus should have done’. The Federalist Society has issued a statement condemning the ruling as ‘too lenient’, saying it leaves it too ambiguous as to whether or not all Native Americans should be euthanized.”


justforthearticles20 t1_ivg7sae wrote

Republican child traffickers trying to overturn a law that protects Native American children from them.


Lawless_and_Braless t1_ivgf3rd wrote

Historically, the US government has proven to be super fair and not at all racist in regards to Native rights and issues so I’m sure we’ll be fiiiiiine.


sylva748 t1_ivhix89 wrote

Just like how the news called them native creatures when talking about elections. Or last year labeling them as others. I'm sure this will go over smoothly.


[deleted] t1_ivi0vrq wrote



Ownza t1_iviai7i wrote

If all of those ethnicities owned the country before everyone killed 90% of the population with disease, and then invaded. Sure. i'd probably wage some money that in China Chinese babies have a preference to go to Chinese parents.


Also, add to the fact that native children were pretty much abducted from their families, and white washed in child concentration camps.


[deleted] t1_ivibhg5 wrote



ayriana t1_ividqbc wrote

It's almost as if some actions can have generational impacts. Also, this shit was happening while people who identify as Gen X were alive- It's not just old dead people.


ImmediateJeweler5066 t1_ivpj1uv wrote

Because being Native American in this context isn’t about race, it only applies to tribal citizens. I’m not an enrolled member of the white race, but for ICWA to apply you have to be a member of a political entity. It’s completely different.


SofieTerleska t1_ivhy1gw wrote

It's true that there are difficult edge case situations that arise with ICWA but the Brackeens' isn't one of them and honestly, they piss me off. Anyone who becomes a foster parent has to realize that the situation is unlikely to be permanent, and if they weren't instructed about how ICWA works when they were taking foster parenting classes that was horrific negligence on the part of whoever did the instruction. I'm sure they truly love these children but they knew from the beginning that they were Indian and that if suitable Native/biological family members or foster carers could be found, the kids would go to them -- and now they're basically trying to run out the clock hoping that the kids will have spent too long with them and courts won't want to send them anywhere else. And the arguments for not sending the little girl to her relatives is basically that they're poor -- and that's the reason ICWA was passed in the first place, so many children were being taken from Indian families due to poverty (and also for legitimately good reasons, but the bar was a LOT lower when it came to taking kids from Indian families) that their communities were being hollowed out. I mean damn, dude, I don't have a swimming pool either, does that mean you have the right to take my kids in court? It's awful to have a child leave your home, but this is literally what you signed up for when you became a foster parent.


Lamont-Cranston t1_ivgoted wrote

Who is bankrolling this and for what purpose?


lawbotamized t1_ivguid4 wrote

Right wing think tanks. Oil and gas, so many people. It is an attack on the concept and rubric of Indian law. If ICWA is struck down as problematically race-based then so could be eventually the entire bureau of Indian affairs and tribal nations as we know them. The land and minerals that would enter the federal domain is incredible. Among other outcomes.


notallthatrelevant t1_ivgshn8 wrote

Private fostering and adoption agencies. In GOP states they deliberately underfund DCS and divert funds to privately run agencies (many of which are faith based) to cover the gap. It serves a double purpose, because it’s a grift that funnels public aid money into private hands, plus faith based organizations can refuse services to whoever they feel like. In this case, it’s partially a cash grab and partially wanting to appease folks who are beholden to some kind of weird, assimilationist fantasy about saving the defenseless natives.


ImmediateJeweler5066 t1_ivjzc3l wrote

It’s really oil and gas. The big law firm that did pro bono work on this is Gibson & Dunn, which represents Chevron and Energy Transfer Partners (DAPL). They are trying to end all tribal sovereignty because tribal lands have billions in fossil fuel and mineral wealth. And they want to make sure there is no Indigenous resistance like Standing Rock. Others will benefit too, but it’s mostly a Trojan horse for O&G.

If you like podcasts, This Land is great to learn about ICWA.


Lamont-Cranston t1_ivkv8gz wrote

I think I've heard about this, any sources?


sllop t1_ivmmees wrote

Season 2 of the This Land podcast by Rebecca Nagle is the best and easiest place to start.


ImmediateJeweler5066 t1_ivpi2nw wrote

This Land. Also to learn more about how Gibson Dunn went scorched earth for Chevron, season 5 of the podcast Drilled goes deep into it.

Also a few blog posts:

Unfortunately though, issues like this rarely get the mainstream coverage they deserve.


HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivl8wsz wrote

White Christiam Nationalists. The goal is to covert Indians as children and destroy their culture. Even thoigh many Indians are already Christian, it makes them think they have a feathet in their cap for God.


[deleted] t1_ivh2ax7 wrote



SofieTerleska t1_ivhy7nu wrote

If they were both your biological parents, how did that work? ICWA doesn't say that non-Native biological parents should be favored over Native ones.


[deleted] t1_ivi67b5 wrote



HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivldvdt wrote

Which was why ICWA is the Gold Standard for child welfare, family should always be first!


Crom_3 t1_ivgir7r wrote

Native children should be placed with Native foster parents of the same tribe whenever possible. I think we can all agree upon that. But the cases were talking about and the people suing are white families that have native children. These kids are in happy homes with loving parents, but the tribes think preserving those children's culture is worth ripping those children away from the only parents they've ever known. The trauma you cause a young child when you rip it away from its mother and father is devastating, and the child may never recover.

There needs to be flexibility in the system. Make every attempt to place a native child with a native family. But if you have a native child that's grown up with a set of white parents. And those parents are loving and they're well taken care of and a happy home, don't rip them out of that family and cause them devastating trauma for the sake of preserving their heritage. It's just not worth it.


cuentaderana t1_ivgji45 wrote

I don’t agree. There’s too much room for abuse in saying that a native child placed with white parents for an extended period of time should stay there. What would stop a state from placing a native child in foster care while they “look” for relatives and drag their feet until it’s too late? Or what would stop a white family from appealing in family court to try and keep a native child who is going to be placed with relatives/a tribal member until it’s “too late” (this happened in CA btw, a white family sued to try and keep a native child placed temporarily in their care until family could be found, and they managed to drag the process out for years so they could claim they were the only family the now toddler ever knew).


SofieTerleska t1_ivhyl8h wrote

That's the reason the Brackeen lawsuit exists, though -- the authorities did find a Native foster family for one of their foster children when she was quite young and they were suing to prevent her being taken there. On a human level, I understand that it's awful to say goodbye to the baby you've cared for. But they signed up for foster parenting, they had to take classes, and they either learned about how ICWA works there or they had terrible instructors. Foster parents aren't usually able to adopt for a lot of reasons, not just ICWA -- this is literally what they signed up for.


HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivlecvh wrote

The child should not have been placed with the Brackeens, especially given their hostility towards a law preserving culture.

The reason they have "grown up" with this white foster family is due to their unethical behavior and fighting the tribe.


Crom_3 t1_ivlwrdw wrote

Yes, that may have been a mistake. But, do we traumatize these kids by ripping them away from the only loving parents and happy home they know to fix that mistake? Or do we leave them in that loving home, and work harder to bettet place native children in native homes going forward?


[deleted] t1_ivlx7uo wrote



Crom_3 t1_ivndu3w wrote

I get it. You believe those kids being raised by a native family is important enough to forcible remove them from the only loving family they've ever known and very likely traumatize them severely. Those kids don't understand that they should have been placed with a native family to ensure they are raised native. They only know that you are taking them away from the mother, father and family they love by force.

Talk about what should have and could have happened all day. Bring up the ridiculous parallels to kidnapped children. But just understand that those kids welfare isn't your first consideration. Making sure their parents have the correct ethnicity is.


HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivne2jb wrote

You are the one not caring about these kids well being. They are kidnappers, their behavior is traumatizing these children. This is not about race, these children are being treated as a commodity by the Brackeens


chiseledarrow t1_ivglv98 wrote

Says the non-native.


hawklost t1_ivgtz23 wrote

Do you think it's ok to segregate children based on their parents race, sexual orientation, religion and/or ancestry?

Because effectively what you are implying is that native children are only OK to be with native parents. Which logically would fit the same with any race or religion argument for segregation of the child.


344dead t1_ivgvzr5 wrote

I think there is more nuance than what you're making out. We committed genocide against natives including taken kids from homes and having them raised by white parents to "take the savage out of them". This wasn't all that long ago too. I'm not saying what is right or wrong here. Just saying there are other factors worth considering.


RetardedJoy t1_ivh3mew wrote

If anyone had bothered to read what this case is really about, this excerpt sums it up well enough:

At the core of the disagreement is whether the term “Indian” is a racial or political classification. Those who would repeal the ICWA view “Indian” as a racial classification, and therefore argue the ICWA is racially discriminatory and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. To the contrary, I argue in the following that “Indian” is best interpreted as a political classification for purposes of the ICWA, as evidenced by both the historical context of Indians in the U.S. and the ICWA’s provisions, which manifest congressional intent to protect tribes as political units. Any argument against the ICWA should address “Indian” as a political classification, because to do otherwise is to ignore the major political issue at stake: tribal sovereignty. (Source:

Additional Sources:

Tribes are governments, NOT racial categories; Indian Law Resource Center;

ICWA is being used to undermine tribal sovereignty and self-determination ACLU


HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivlency wrote

ICWA is not about race, it is about Citizenship in a tribe.

Should someone from Korea be allowed to adopt a US citizen without consulting the US government?


hawklost t1_ivlj6yk wrote

If the child has citizenship in both Korea and the US, yes. They are a child of both nations.

Or would you say it was OK for the US to adopt a child who is of both citizenships in the US but not Korea. Or maybe you would say that that child cannot be adopted at all since it requires consent of both nations.


HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivljjli wrote

Saying that both nations need to consent to the adoption is reasonable.


hawklost t1_ivlkl88 wrote

And so if one nation says no then the child cannot be adopted at all?

The problem with needing both nations consent is the assumption that both nations will agree.


HopeFloatsFoward t1_ivll5cf wrote

They are both approving the selection of adoptive parents, not denying adoption period.

Contrary to popular belief, children are not denied adoptive homes due to ICWA. They simply have family and native homes prioritized. Tribes aprove adoption by non Indian or non family all the time.

And they prioritize white family members over non family members too.

The choice is not this child will not have a home or will be adopted by white couples.


juni4ling t1_ivhj8r8 wrote

Watching and waiting to see how this turns out...


clementine1864 t1_ivi4gpv wrote

ICWA should allow the court to apply a best interests standard to take into consideration factors like bonding , and in this case being with a sibling where a sibling bond will be destroyed .


Mindless-Effect-1745 t1_ivgmhr0 wrote

Another example of Republicans being concerned for Life. 😡


BippyTheGuy t1_ivgan44 wrote

Good. Absolutely mind-boggling that it was ever passed in the first place.


UncannyTarotSpread t1_ivggkkg wrote

Why is this good?


leisuremann t1_ivgo4ot wrote

Going to go out on a limb and guess that it's because democrats are are for the law that's on the books. Remember kids dem = bad and regressive = good.


BippyTheGuy t1_ivgzhub wrote

Because the law prioritizes racial cohesion over the safety of children.


UncannyTarotSpread t1_ivh1beq wrote

Does it? Or does it mandate that the first options must be people who are familiar with the culture the kids are coming from, so we don’t commit genocide all over again?


BippyTheGuy t1_ivh1gmo wrote

Not possible to do without violating the 14th Amendment.


UncannyTarotSpread t1_ivh1wxd wrote

How do you figure that, exactly?


BippyTheGuy t1_ivh7hxi wrote

Racial discrimination.


ayriana t1_ivif3ze wrote

It's more complicated than that and either you know it and don't care, or you are choosing to remain ignorant. Either way is not a good look.