Constitutional Challenge to Parts of Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act

Here is the complaint in Doe v. Jesson (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

25. MIFPA defines an “Indian child” as “an unmarried person who is under age 18 and is: (1) a  member of an Indian tribe; or (2) eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.” Minn. Stat. 260.755, subd. 8. By contrast, ICWA defines an Indian child as either “(a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member ofan Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. 1903(4) (emphasis added).

26. Many Indian tribes have only blood quantum or lineage requirements as prerequisites for membership. See, e.g., Paul Spruhan, The Origins, Current Status, & Future Prospects ofBlood Quantum as the Definition ofMembership in the Navajo Nation, 8 Tribal L.J. 1, 5 (2007); see also Rev. Const. & Bylaws of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, art. II, 1(c) (child eligible ifborn to a member and child is at least one quarter Minnesota Chippewa Indian blood). The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe is a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Id. at art. III.

27. Unlike ICWA, the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act, facially and as applied, gives Indian tribes the right under the color of state law to interfere with voluntary, private adoptions.