![]() “Our main concern is what today’s decision means for the little girl, Y.R.J. But Kavanaugh injected a cautionary note in a separate opinion focused on the preferences for Native foster and adoptive parents. The Navajo Nation has opposed that adoption.Īt last fall’s arguments, several conservative justices expressed concern about at least one aspect of the law that gives preference to Native parents, even if they are of a different tribe than the child they are seeking to adopt or foster.Īmong them was Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was in the majority Thursday in favor of the tribes. The Brackeens are trying to adopt the boy’s 5-year-old half-sister, known in court papers as Y.R.J., who has lived with them since infancy. ![]() The lead plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case - Chad and Jennifer Brackeen of Fort Worth, Texas - adopted a Native American child after a prolonged legal fight with the Navajo Nation, one of the two largest Native American tribes, based in the Southwest. ![]() They also contended it puts the interests of tribes ahead of children and improperly allows the federal government too much power over adoptions and foster placements, areas that typically are under state control. Three white families, the state of Texas and a small number of other states claimed the law is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause because it was based on race. “We hope this decision will lay to rest the political attacks aimed at diminishing tribal sovereignty and creating instability throughout Indian law that have persisted for too long,” said a joint statement from Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Morongo Band of Mission Indians Chairman Charles Martin, Oneida Nation Chairman Tehassi Hill and Quinault Indian Nation President Guy Capoeman. The leaders of tribes involved in the case called the outcome a major victory for tribes and Native children. ![]() The decision, Alito wrote, “disserves the rights and interests of these children.”īut Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Colorado native who has emerged as a champion of Native rights since joining the court in 2017, wrote in a separate opinion that the decision “safeguards the ability of tribal members to raise their children free from interference by state authorities and other outside parties.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, each writing that Congress lacks the authority to interfere with foster care placements and adoptions, typically the province of the states. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |