Projects
American Indian Community Data Profile, 2002
Namadji Youth and Elders Project Report, 2001
Forum Reports
1997 Fall: Tribal Sovereignty and
American Indian Leadership
1996 Fall: Tribal Governments: What will they look like in the year 2010?
1996 Spring: The Threatened State of Tribal Sovereignty
Court Decisions
Indian Child Welfare Act
In Re Bridget R.
49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1996 )
Facts of the case: The biological father of two-year-old twin Indian children sought to rescind his voluntary relinquishment of parental rights. The biological father's tribe, Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians (a federally recognized tribe), moved to intervene.
Issues of the case: The issues was whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) should apply in a case where there was voluntary relinquishment, and the children were not taken out of an existing Indian family.
Outcome of the case: The California Court of appeals reversed the lower court's decision to return the children to the extended family of the biological father. The court of appeals held that (1) ICWA was unconstitutional unless limited by "existing family" doctrine, and (2) if the biological father was determined to have a significant social, cultural or political relationship with Indian tribal culture to warrant application of ICWA, guardianship hearings would be required to determine whether, under state law as well as ICWA, change of custody would be detrimental.
In the Matter of the Custody of S.E.G., A.L.W. and V.M.G.
521 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 1994)
Facts of the case: A petition for adoption was filed by E.C. and C.C., the non-Indian foster parents for three Native American children fro whom they had provided foster care. The Leech Lake Band of Chippewa appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals following the district court's ruling in favor of non-Indian foster parents; petition for adoption.
Issues of the case: At issues in this case whether the placement preferences provision of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides a "good cause" exception for "extraordinary emotional needs" based on a child's need for permanence in the form of adoption. Also at issues was whether the record in this supports the trial court's findings that these children had extraordinary emotional needs and there was an "unavailability of suitable families for placement" after a diligent search.
Outcome of the case: The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decisions and held that while good cause may include a child's need for stability, this is not equivalent to a need to be adopted. It also held that the record failed to support the trial court's finding that these children have extraordinary emotional needs.
Hunting and Fishing Rights
Mille Lacs Band of Indians v. State of Minnesota
861 F.Supp 784 (D.Minn. 1994)
Facts of the case: This case arose out of language in an 1837 Treaty between the United States and the Chippewa Indians, which guaranteed them hunting, fishing and gathering rights in ceded territory.
Issues of the case: The issues in this case were divided into two phases. The first phase was to determine whether the Mille Lacs Band retains any rights under the 1837 Treaty and whether those rights extend to land owed privately. If it were determined that the Band had retained rights under the treaty, then the validity of state laws regulating those rights would be examined in the second phase.
Outcome of the case: The first phase determined that hunting, fishing and gathering rights guaranteed to the Chippewa in the 1837 Treaty continue to exist.
The second phase of the case is scheduled to begin in the fall of 1996 before Judge Davis. Since the phase one decision, a number of Wisconsin tribes , who were a part of the 1837 Treaty, have joined the suit.
Trust Lands
State of South Dakota, et. al. v. United States Department of the
Interior, et. al.
No.94-2344, 69 F3rd 878 1995 WL649494 (8thCir., 1995)
Facts of the case: In March 1990, the Lower Brule Tribes submitted an application under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 465 asking the secretary of the interior to acquire 91 acres of land in trust for use by the tribe. The tribe had already paid for the land, which is situated seven miles from the reservation and is partially within the City of Oacoma. The tribes stated that the land would be used to create an industrial park adjacent to an interstate highway, explaining that, "[t]his site, Trust status for the land, and tax advantages are critically necessary for the development to occur."
Issues of the case: At issues was whether the acquisition was invalid because 25 U.S.C. Sec. 465 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The City of Oacoma and the state alleged that it was. Alternatively, the state and city also argued (1) the agency violated its internal rules of procedure and the assistant secretary acted beyond the scope of his delegated authority; (2) the approval was arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with the agency's governing regulations; and (3) that the tribe planned to develop the land as a casino and the secretary was aware of the tribe's true intentions, but failed to comply with the approval procedures of the IGRA. The state and city alleged that they were aggrieved by the secretary's acquisition because it deprived them of tax revenues and may place the land beyond their regulatory powers.
Outcome of the case: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts ruling, and found 25 U.S.C. Sec. 465 to be an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority. The court found that the statute provided no clear guidelines for the acquisition of land and no mechanism for review of the decisions of the Bureau of Indian affairs. The Lower Brule have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
top | Projects
| Research | Publications
| Links | About Us
| Contact Us | Home
© Copyright 2002, American Indian Policy Center. All Rights
Reserved.
1463 Hewitt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55104 • tel: 651-644-1728
aipc@cpinternet.com
Last updated:
Tuesday November 1, 2005