SCOTUSBlog: Two Indian Law Petitions to Watch for this Week’s Conference


Issue: (1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.
Issue: (1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., but takes place outside of Indian lands; and (2) whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands.


This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, gaming, ICWA, IGRA, Michigan Indian, Research, sovereign immunity, Supreme Court and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to SCOTUSBlog: Two Indian Law Petitions to Watch for this Week’s Conference

  1. Finally! I can’t wait for the Baby Girl case to be over. I doubt the Court will review the case, but if they do, at least we’ll have another case which strengthens the protections of the ICWA. It’s absolutely impossible for the Petitioners to win this one. I just hate that the Browns have to continue to go through this. It won’t be long. Have a great day, everyone!

  2. says:

    It’s not going to be over until the ICWA of 1978 is brought into the 20 century, and update to where this can’t happen again

  3. The law isn’t the problem in this case. The problem is that these people attempted to circumvent the law, and as a result, it wasn’t followed from the beginning. Thankfully, they got caught. The deception involved in attempting to hide the father’s Indian status as well as other things, along with the fact that these people refused to give this man his child from the beginning (and are still fighting to steal her) tells us everything we need to know about them.

    It’s almost comical (if it wasn’t so sad) when I hear people complain that a law which is meant to make it harder for them to take an Indian child away from its parents, family, and people…is making it harder for them to take an Indian child away from its parents, family, and people.

    How, precisely, does one successfully amend the law in such a way that it cannot fulfill the sole purpose for its existence?

    This case WILL be over when the Supreme Court tells these people that they cannot have this man’s little girl.

    The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not going to ignore the facts of this case (which overwhelmingly support Baby Girl, Birth Father, and the Cherokee Nation) and the Federal laws which govern this case (in violation of Article VI, Clause 2), unlawfully deprive this man of his Constitutionally protected rights to direct the care, custody, control, education, and religious upbringing of his child, and simply hand the child over to these people.

    The Petitioners are the bad guys in this situation. They do not have a legal, or moral, leg to stand on. The facts do not support their position. Their legal arguments are absolutely pathetic and incorrect, while the opposing counsel’s arguments are airtight. For all of those reasons, and others, they WILL lose.

  4. Pingback: Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw Cert Petition on SCOTUSBlog Watch List | Turtle Talk

Comments are closed.