Mar 022025
 

Benefit for Native Americans, or a grift for NGOs?

By Elizabeth Morris  – March 2, 2025

Introduction
Economist Milton Friedman taught that competitive capitalism is both a vehicle for economic freedom and a necessity for political freedom (Friedman and Friedman 2002) (E. Morris 2025). Government control of resources and property destroys liberty and government control of the media destroys free speech – thus it is impossible to preserve political freedom in a system where the government controls the economy. As both the federal and tribal governments practice extreme over-reach upon tribal members, the free-market theory of economics and private property ownership is paramount with regard to political and economic conditions within the reservation system (E. Morris 2025).

“Economist Shawn Regan, in his article, Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty, examined federal policies that impede tribal members from attaining financial success and hinder economic development in Indian Country (Regan 2014)” (E. Morris 2025). Regan, along with economists Sowell (2009, 244-245), Alston, and T. Anderson, believes full title to property is necessary for financial leverage – and thus individual and community health and growth (E. Morris 2025).

Economic development in Indian Country requires the establishment of financial institutions and proper stewardship of resources. But it also requires proper oversight, accountability and audit. While much attention has recently been brought upon the widespread corruption within the federal government, the corruption that flows to and through tribal entities with the help of federal dollars remains almost a taboo topic.

Case Point #1: Selling bonds on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Was Hunter Biden Trying to Exploit Tribal Sovereignty?

Many Americans know that on May 12, 2014, Hunter Biden was placed on the board of Burisma, the Ukrainian private oil and gas company (U.S. HSGAC – Finance Committees 2020, 66). His partner, Devon Archer, had been placed on the board three weeks earlier. According to State Department records, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded the Municipal Energy Reform Program (MERP), which entered into a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ with Burisma on October 13, 2014” (U.S. HSGAC – Finance Committees 2020, 15 ftn).

What many are not aware of was Biden’s involvement in a financial crime that used a relatively unregulated bond opportunity on the Pine Ridge Reservation. A payday loan company, established by Raycen Raines around 2012, was initially unaffiliated with Biden and his friends. Located within Oglala Lakota County, which was designated by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1980 as the poorest county in the nation,” loans were made around the country as an “official tribal entity,” free from interference by state regulators” (Morris 2020). It was reported that the payday business charged “an annual percentage rate of 782.00% and a daily interest rate of just more than .021%, meaning that if an individual borrowed $25.71 they would be required to pay back $325.71 if they miss the first scheduled payment that is due two weeks after a loan is taken out” (Ecoffey 2014).

At the time, the “Biden group” was still putting together their own financial vehicles. In an email thread dated October 5, 2013, in which Archer, John Galanis, and Bevan Cooney go over changes to be made in their “bios” as part of organizational affairs, they reference adding Hunter Biden to the group and “putting a little honey in his pocket” (Morris 2020).

Archer and former Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, had met at Yale where they were roommates. Over time, they built a business relationship with Hunter Biden. Rosemont Capital was their initial primary business vehicle. However, in October 2013, they decided to use a “Rosemont Seneca SPV” (special purpose vehicle) because “Rosemont Capital was too close to the Heinz family” and using an SPV would “bring Hunter into the mix.” Archer wanted “to leverage Hunter” in a way that did not involve Heinz as much, because Heinz was “more risk averse’” (Morris 2020). They also mentioned that “Hunter will work if we need him too [sic]” (Morris 2020). Within a week, Biden’s business associate Jason Galanis has set up Rosemont Seneca Partners. Archer, pleased, stated, “Perfect. Let us just keep to that. We get the Biden lift and stay out of Heinz panties” (Morris 2020).

Hunter, Archer and Heinz briefly became “primary business partners on matters involving Ukraine and China” and co-partners in “a variety of investment-focused firms under the name Rosemont Seneca” (Morris 2020). For almost two years, Burisma:

sent 48 wires to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, totaling $3,489,490.78. Of the 48 transactions, 39 are described as “Consulting Services” and 39 of the 48 are in the amount of $83,333.33, with the last of the payments occurring on Feb. 12, 2016. Between June 5, 2014, and Oct. 5, 2015, Rosemont Seneca Bohai sent 38 wires totaling $701,979.00 to three of Hunter Biden’s bank accounts. (U.S. HSGAC – Finance Committees 2020, 67)

Heinz began making moves to sever his formal business ties with Archer and Biden in May 2014. Meanwhile, Biden and Archer joined with the Galanis and Cooney to take over the payday scheme and begin the bond ruse. Attorney William Shipley wrote,

…a group of white-collar ‘fraudsters’ with a long track record of dubious and illegal financial dealings, pitched a proposal to the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, to issue a series of tax-free tribal bonds to raise money for improvements and public works projects on Tribal land. The fraudsters claimed they would take the proceeds from the bond sales and purchase annuities with a reputable insurance company. The revenue from the annuities would pay the interest on the bonds to the investors, and the excess revenue would be used to fund projects on the Tribal land. …What happened instead was that, through a series of fraudulent acts and sham transactions, after the Tribe issued three sets of bonds with an aggregate total value of $64 million, none of the proceeds from the sales of the bonds were used to purchase annuities as promised. Only the first interest payment to investors was made — with money obtained from another source — and a sizeable amount of the $64 million was spent by the promoters on themselves, as well as being used in other business operations with which they were involved. (Shipley 2020)

Shipley put together the following timeline summary of the Pine Ridge scheme:

• At a Las Vegas Indian Economic Development event in March 2014, Jason and John Galanis met the tribal members who ran the payday loan company. The tribal members did not actually represent the tribe, had little capital, no land base and no collateral (Waste 2020). Many individual tribal members have no land title to leverage for investment and loans from banks because the federal government holds their land captive in a “trust.” However, the Galanis, who came to the event looking for poorly regulated tribal partners, sold them on the idea of issuing bonds (Morris 2020).
• The Galanis then took steps to divert funds for the project. Archer knew about this.
• The first bonds were sold in August 2014 “with revenue from the sale totaling $28 million.”
• The second set of bonds were sold in September 2014, “with revenue from the sale totaling $20 million. The purchase of the second set is made with $20 million taken from the $28 million sitting in a bank account. Archer takes “ownership” of one-half of the second set of bonds, and lists them as assets of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC, a real estate investment company that is funded with money from a Chinese investment company partner. At this point, it seems that Rosemont Seneca Bohai has Archer as the only US partner, not Biden or Heinz.”
• The third set of bonds is sold in April 2015, raising $16 million. The funds to buy those bonds come from one client of the second investment advisory company purchased by Galanis and Archer.”
• “At that point, the Tribe has issued $64 million worth of bonds — that it will one day have to buy back — and none of the $64 million has been invested for the benefit of the tribe. The fraud is clear and absolute.”

According to a joint report between the senate committees for Finance and Homeland Security/Governmental Affairs, “In May 2016, Hunter Biden’s business partner, Archer, and five others were arrested and criminally charged in a scheme to defraud investors and a tribal entity of millions of dollars” (U.S. HSGAC – Finance Committees 2020, 68). Charges “were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force,” which conveniently left the Vice President’s son totally out of the picture (Morris 2020).

Nevertheless, documents filed in Hunter Biden’s paternity case showed he was subject to multiple criminal investigations related to “fraud, money laundering and a counterfeiting scheme,” including investigations related to Burisma Holdings, and allegations that “Biden had a hand in a plot … to rip off Sioux Native Americans to the tune of $60 million through the shady sale of tribal bonds”… and Biden “did drum up business for the scheme” (Rosner and Feis 2019). Further, Cooney, who was convicted in the Tribal bond fraud, has released about 26,000 emails, suggesting many implicate Hunter Biden in the bond scheme. Cooney stated that he released the emails because “Hunter Biden improperly escaped accountability and responsibility for his role in the fraud for which seven other people have gone to prison” (Shipley 2020).

Beware of smooth talkers. Look for what is underneath: Watch for the fruit.
While much has been made about how these crimes were foisted on an impoverished, unsuspecting tribe, it needs to be noted that while it was indeed forced on much of the tribe, several leaders were very aware of the illegality of what was happening and ultimately approved it. The leaders approved the scam with the intention of enriching themselves through predatory lending – lending that would intentionally prey upon poor people who could not afford the interest rates (Morris 2020). In fact, Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation is currently “wholly owned by the Wakpamni Lake Community government, a subsidiary municipal tribal government of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and serves as the wholly-owned economic development arm” of the community (Wakpamni Lake Community 2020). According to the Better Business Bureau (2025), WLCC does business under about 100 different names, including Arrowhead Advance, Fast Day Loans, Enableloans.com, and WLCC Lending. Several of these entities had federal RICO and other charges filed against them in the years 2021 to 2025 in several states (SEE: Marquez v. Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation et al; Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL et al; Rainey v. WLCC Lending JEM et al; Rushin v. Black Hawk Financial et al; Bridges v. Raines; Green v. WLCC II et al; Ohlemeyer v. Fast Fund Lending et al; Harris v. WLCC Lending FHC et al; Knotts v. WLCC Lending FFG d/b/a Falcon Funding Group et al) (PaceMonitor 2024), (Justia 2025), (Justia 2024), and more.

Case Point #2: The Federal Reserve of Minneapolis
What is the Federal Reserve? “The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the Federal Reserve System as the central bank of the United States to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system” (Board of Govs Federal Reserve 2017).

According to the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, (2025), “The Federal Reserve System …performs five general functions to promote the effective operation of the U.S. economy and, more generally, the public interest:

• conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy;
• promotes the stability of the financial system and seeks to minimize and contain systemic risks through active monitoring and engagement in the U.S. and abroad;
• promotes the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions and monitors their impact on the financial system as a whole;
• fosters payment and settlement system safety and efficiency through services to the banking industry and the U.S. government that facilitate U.S.-dollar transactions and payments; and
• promotes consumer protection and community development through consumer-focused supervision and examination, research and analysis of emerging consumer issues and trends, community economic development activities, and the administration of consumer laws and regulations.

While economic development can be interpreted as an aspiration of the Federal Reserve, it is unclear why the Fed partners with social justice NGOs to establish their agendas.

The Federal Reserve’s Investment in Indian Country
According to Federal Reserve historian Jonathan Rose, “significant interactions between the Federal Reserve and Native American communities began in the 1990s, spurred by the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)” (Rose 2023). Since the establishment of the CRA, “engagement between the Federal Reserve and Native American communities has expanded, “including through the creation of the Center for Indian Country Development (CIDC) at the Minneapolis Fed in 2015” (Rose 2023).

What is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)?
“The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted in 1977, requires the Federal Reserve and other federal banking regulators to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they do business, including low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods” (Board of Govs Federal Reserve 2024).
Banking Regulators for the CRA
“Three federal banking agencies, or regulators, are responsible for the CRA. Banks that have CRA obligations are supervised by one of these three regulators. Each regulator has a dedicated CRA site that provides information about the banks they oversee and those banks’ CRA ratings and Performance Evaluations” (Board of Govs Federal Reserve 2024)

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
• Federal Reserve Board (FRB)
• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

Federal Reserve’s Role
“The Federal Reserve supervises state member banks–or, state-chartered banks that have applied for and been accepted to be part of the Federal Reserve System–for CRA compliance” (Board of Govs Federal Reserve 2024). To carry out its role, the Federal Reserve

• examines state member banks to evaluate and rate their performance under the CRA;
• considers banks’ CRA performance in context with other supervisory information when analyzing applications for mergers, acquisitions, and branch openings; and
• shares information about community development techniques with bankers and the public.

Who authorized the Federal Reserve to funnel money through the CIDC?
While it is unclear whether the CIDC is what the enacting laws intended, the Board of Governors has the authority to

act in its own name and through its own attorneys in enforcing any provision of this title, regulations promulgated hereunder, or any other law or regulation, or in any action, suit, or proceeding to which the Board is a party and which involves the Board’s regulation or supervision of any bank, bank holding company…or other entity, or the administration of its operations. (Board of Govs Federal Reserve 2017, (p))

The President of the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis states:

Native nations are determined to design their own futures. I’m proud that the Center for Indian Country Development, based here at the Minneapolis Fed, informs these economic development efforts through high-quality research and analysis and events that bring experts and stakeholders together. —Neel Kashkari, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. (Federal Reserve 2025)

Was the CRA intended to be a nation-building mechanism?
Sharing community development techniques with bankers and the public is a role that is apparently open to Board interpretation and can include promotion, advocacy and activism for change to public policy. Lofty goals are often sprinkled in with more dangerous rhetoric. The Center for Indian Country Development (CIDC) was established with the purpose of “advancing the economic self-determination and prosperity of Native nations and Indigenous communities through actionable data and research that make substantial contributions to public policy” as well as “close the data gap to inform the implementation of effective policies in Native American communities, increase the accessibility of financing and commercial credit, and optimize tribal taxation authority to raise predictable revenue for public investment” (Rose 2023).

The mission of the Federal Reserve’s CIDC goes beyond data collection and increasing commercial credit. The CIDC is involved in changing public policy and advocating for the distribution of federal funds to tribal governments. Casey Lozar, Vice President at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and Director of the CIDC, has done policy work “to ensure that Tribal Nations are not overlooked in public finance” including “federal funding to address energy needs among Tribal Nations” (PMP 2024).

Meeting energy needs is important – which is why encouraging self-sufficiency is important. Policies to support energy could include those that encourage growth of the economy through oil production, as the Fort Belknap Reservation is doing. Economic Development could also mean encouragement of private land ownership free from the constraints of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

Even the Fed admit that poverty within reservation boundaries is largely due to land being held “in trust” by the federal government. The Federal Reserve states that “For such land, lenders cannot execute a standard mortgage, as they cannot acquire the underlying land” (Rose 2023). However, rather than encourage the federal government to release full titles to the adults holding land allotted to them, allowing stewardship of their own property as other adults are allowed, the Fed encourages “workarounds,” such as “securing a loan by a leasehold interest or by some other type of property or revenue stream.” At the same time, the Fed concedes that “lending institutions may have to invest in learning how they can underwrite loans differently while also maintaining profitability” (Rose 2023).

Interestingly, most tribal members do not live within reservation boundaries and might benefit more from policies that assist economic development apart from the watchful eye of the BIA. The Fed states that “Statistically, 45 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native population lives in census tracts that are low- or moderate-income, distressed, or underserved, and therefore the kind of areas that the CRA was intended to benefit” (Rose 2023). However, according to the last three U.S. censuses, over 75% of tribal members do not live within Indian Country (US Census Bureau 2000) (US Census Bureau 2010) (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Many have left due to the high rate of crime, violence and poverty on many reservations. According to numerous reports and studies,

…types of crimes that Native Americans are likely to be victimized by include: murder, assault, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and gang violence” (Tighe, 2014) (Hyland 2014, 4). In 2014, the Center for Native American Youth had reported, “Violence, including intentional injuries, homicide and suicide, account for 75% of deaths for AI/AN youth age 12 to 20” (SAMHSA) (Center for Native American Youth 2014). The CNAY also stated, “Adolescent AI/ANs have death rates 2 to 5 times the rate of whites in the same age group (SAMHSA), resulting from higher levels of suicide and a variety of risky behaviors” (Center for Native American Youth 2014) …and… Recent research shows that while the US child mortality rate for children ages 1 to 14 has decreased by 9% since 2000, it has increased by 15% among AI/AN children (National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association) …Alcoholism mortality rates are 514% higher than the general population” (Center for Native American Youth 2014). (Morris 2019, 212)

All this to say, if it is true that 45% live in low to moderate housing – AND 75% do not live within reservation boundaries, many AI/AN are living in “areas that the CRA was intended to benefit” – OUTSIDE of reservation boundaries, where lenders CAN “execute a standard mortgage” under the same rules every other citizen benefits from.

Innovations in Financial Services and policy in Indian Country
On August 27, 2018, the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis hosted a “Native Financial Institution Gathering” on the Flathead Reservation in Montana (Federal Reserve 2018).

The director of the CICD at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Patrice Kunesh, moderated a panel concerning ‘Innovations in Financial Services in Indian Country” (Federal Reserve 2018). One of the invited panel participants was Kim Pate, of the newly formed NDN Collective, from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.

Founded just months earlier in Rapid City, South Dakota, The NDN Collective is a “left-of-center Native American advocacy organization” active in environmentalist activism (InfluenceWatch 2025). The Executive Director of the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation, Nick Tilsen, had made an announcement on February 14, 2018, that he was transitioning over the next few months to a position as the CEO and President of the newly founded NDN Collective (Greager 2018) (Trahant 2018). Information shared at the Flathead Reservation meeting concerning NDN Collective included their mission to

Build the collective power of Indigenous Peoples, communities, and Nations to exercise our inherent right to self-determination, while fostering a world that is built on a foundation of justice and equity for all people and the planet (Federal Reserve 2018).

They also shared that the vision of NDN Collective is for a “world that is just and equitable for all people and the planet,” with the theory that change will come through three ‘D’s: “Defend, Develop Decolonize” (Federal Reserve 2018).

Other moderators throughout the meeting included Charlene Herrick and Michou Kokodoko of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Doug Gray of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Tesia Lemelle of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Nikki Pieratos of CICD, and Amanda Roberts, Federal Reserve Board of Governors” (Federal Reserve 2018). Ms. Roberts moderated a panel called “Moving to Action – Reaching Native America” (Federal Reserve 2018).

Casey Family programs, a NGO focused on “safely reducing the need for foster care in the United States” (Casey Family 2025), was one of the sponsors for the networking reception held on Flathead Lake following the meeting (Federal Reserve 2018). Critics have claimed that Casey Family achieves its goal of reducing foster care by pushing legislation that makes it more difficult to remove children from unsafe homes. It is unclear how they were involved in a meeting concerning “Innovations in Financial Services.”

CIDC serving as an intermediary to the funneling of funds to Indian Country
On February 1, 2020, Casey Lozar succeeded Patrice Kunesh as director of the CICD at the Minneapolis Fed. Director Casey Lozar announced this in his February 25, 2020, post “Moving forward in Indian Country” (Lozar 2020). In it, he stated,

Our emphasis on robust academic and applied research, or as we call it “actionable research,” brings much needed data and policy insights into the data deserts of Indian Country. Our partnerships in Indian Country tap into the collective motivation to accelerate economic and community development for tribal nations and indigenous peoples. The Bank’s commitment to Indian Country is palpable, and the energy to seek change and elevate best practices in education, homeownership, and access to capital is invigorating. …We are proud of the wide range of research we produced, the public outreach we engaged in, and the follow-up conversations that spurred collective action and policy considerations to advance our tribal communities. We are eager to amplify our efforts in 2020” …Last October, my predecessor Patrice Kunesh testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on housing and lending in Indian Country… Sen. John Hoeven (R-North Dakota) highlighted some of the core issues in his opening remarks: “The dream of homeownership is a foundational principle in any society. … However, rural and tribal communities often have a difficult time accessing credit and the ability to secure a mortgage on trust lands. (Lozar 2020)

Lozar also noted that Project manager Nikki Pieratos, formerly of the CIDC, “found new opportunities with the NDN Collective,” and Kenneth Whaley’s “article on the low-income housing tax credit program in Indian Country was recently published and supported the CICD’s testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs” (Lozar 2020).

Climate Justice Alliance
In December 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that because of the Inflation Reduction Act, $600 million in grants for 2024 would go to 11 national and regional grantmakers serving as pass-through entities. These grants were appropriated through the 2023 Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking (EJ TCGM) Program, which was created to “reduce barriers” to the application process and (specifically) “increase the efficiency of the awards process for environmental justice grants” (CJA 2023)(NDN Collective 2024). The EPA had decided that this pass-through model would increase access to funding for small organizations by “reducing the burden of having to navigate the federal grants process as a prime recipient,” and “reduce the amount of time from application to receipt of funding” (CJA 2023). All this was to get federal money into the hands of left-leaning “environmental justice” NGOs as easily as possible.

On Dec 20, 2023, the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) announced it had been selected by the EPA to serve as the National Grantmaker pass-through in Regions 8-10 for the EPA’s EJ TCGM program. The CJA received $50 million of the $600 million for 2024 from the EPA. The $50 million would be distributed through CJA’s United Network for Impact, Transformation, & Equity in Environmental Justice Communities (UNITE-EJ) application (CJA 2023). From there, it was said to go to community-based organizations and entities for “capacity building and projects addressing local environmental and public health issues” (CJA 2023).

The “CJA led and submitted the UNITE-EJ proposal” with the help of NDN Collective and other left leaning, federally funded groups (CJA 2023). Nick Tilsen, President and CEO of the NDN Collective stated,

The climate and environmental investments through the Inflation Reduction Act implemented over the next few years will set the groundwork for generations to come. We are excited to partner with UNITE-EJ to ensure that Native communities can access EPA grants, including through Thriving Communities, lead with vision and experience, and move policymakers, tribal governments, and grassroots communities to not only dream but also lean into sovereignty. (CJA 2023)

Case Point #3: Congressional Report: NGOs or Radical Activist Movements?

Seven months later, on July 23, 2024, the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works issued a Congressional report titled “Investment in Radical Activists: A Case Study on the NDN Collective – Supported by the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act” (EPW/Senate 2024). The report signed by Senator Shelley Moore Capito stated:

Almost two years ago, Democrats rammed through $41.5 billion in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). I was very concerned. The funding totaled four times what the EPA receives through annual appropriations in a typical year, and the Democrats provided no funding to the EPA’s inspector general to oversee and audit the IRA. Democrats wrote the legislation to funnel billions to “community-based nonprofit organizations” with no accountability for how they spent taxpayer dollars. I feared that would be code for bankrolling extreme progressive environmental causes and propping up radical energy activists.

Senator Capito began work to expose “how the IRA supports groups with anti-Israel, pro ‘defund the police’ agendas” (EPW/Senate 2024). Her first conference “focused on Climate Justice Alliance, a radical group receiving $50 million in IRA funding”(EPW/Senate 2024). She then took a deeper dive into their partner, the NDN Collective. The Committee found:

The NDN Collective is an activist group that is a partner of the Climate Justice Alliance, which is being awarded $50 million in taxpayer funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. (NDN is also going to have a say in disbursing $50 million in other IRA funds.) The NDN Collective wants to dismantle bedrock institutions of the United States, and has stood firmly against Israel and in support of pro-Hamas radicals (EPW/Senate 2024).

The organization Influence Watch echoed the Commission’s finding that NDN was a partner of the Climate Justice Alliance and had received $100 million (two $50 million grants) in federal funding provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the IRA” (InfluenceWatch 2025). Yet, the Biden administration essential response to the oversight work was “nothing to see here” (EPW/Senate 2024). When questioned, the EPA told Fox News that the agency engaged in a “rigorous, multi-level application process” and that “[p]olitical affiliations played no role in the evaluation, scoring, and selection of Grantmakers” (EPW/Senate 2024). Nevertheless, the facts are:

(1) The Biden administration selected the NDN Collective as a partner to administer $100 million in taxpayer resources while the group was actively engaged in radical anti-American and anti-Israel advocacy;
(2) NDN’s positions are not just politically radical—they are stridently anti-American; and
(3) The Biden’s administration support for the NDN Collective as an IRA partner is not a one-off decision; the Administration has sought out the Collective as a trusted advisor throughout President Biden’s term (EPW/Senate 2024).

NDN Political demandsThe Congressional Report revealed:
1) In March 2022, NDN released a “position paper” on Palestine, “which designated Zionism as ‘a racist colonial movement’ and called on Palestinians to resist ‘against [the] colonialism and occupation’ of Israel” (EPW/Senate 2024).

2) “Following Hamas’ invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023, the NDN Collective undertook an aggressive anti-Israel campaign that continues to present day. Despite NDN’s public advocacy campaign, the EPA named the NDN Collective as a partner to two $50 million awards under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program in December 2023” (EPW/Senate 2024).

3) On October 19, 2023, The NDN Collective defended Hamas’ “ongoing war against Israel as resistance against ‘settler colonialism’” (EPW/Senate 2024). NDN made a Ceasefire statement: “A ceasefire, and end to the U.S. funding Israel’s military, and true Palestinian land rights and liberation are a path to peace” (EPW/Senate 2024).

4) On November 4, 2023, despite numerous accounts of “widespread brutality” and “rampant sexual violence inflicted on Israeli women,” Tilsen spoke at the “National March on Washington for Palestine” and urged “revolution” against “the U.S. and Israel and cast both countries as enemies against peace and justice” (EPW/Senate 2024). He stated, “We are in struggle. Therefore, we are in REVOLUTION…. “And in this battle we will not stop no matter what” (EPW/Senate 2024).

5) On December 8, 2023, the NDN Collective “broadcast a poetry reading for Gaza’s ‘martyrs’ where participants advocated for violence against Israel and cast the U.S. as a ‘terrorist nation’” (EPW/Senate 2024). Words included:

NDN Collective political poetry

6) In December 2023, “at the United Nations annual climate conference in Dubai, the State Department invited the NDN Collective to host a panel on ‘Investing in Effective Climate Resiliency: Climate Finance for All Peoples.’ …One NDN panelist displayed her anti-Israel advocacy by donning a ‘ceasefire’ totebag, Palestinian keffiyeh, and ‘solidarity’ with Palestine necklace” (EPW/Senate 2024).

7) On December 20, 2023, the EPA named the NDN Collective “as a partner to two $50 million awards under the IRA’s Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program.” Awardees were “praised by EPA Administrator Regan and Vice President Harris” (EPW/Senate 2024).

8) On December 25, 2023, the NDN Collective called for “the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israel, —including those guilty of terrorism and the mass murder of innocent civilians.” They did not call for the release of Israeli hostages held captive in Gaza (EPW/Senate 2024).

9) In May 2024, While protests disrupted Universities across the United States, the NDN “deployed tactical media units to broadcast footage from at least five encampments—including Columbia University and Harvard University—to deny reports of anti-Semitism against Jewish students and amplify pro-Hamas narratives” (EPW/Senate 2024). The NDN Collective blogged on May 7, “Zionism, settler-colonialism, and the US are losing the narrative battle” (EPW/Senate 2024).

Long before the10/7 Attacks, the NDN had made clear their stance that the “U.S. government is illegitimate and should be resisted” (EPW/Senate 2024). “NDN Collective publications and personnel often refer to the United States as the ‘so-called United States’ and the office of President as the ‘so-called President of the United States’” (EPW/Senate 2024).

NDN Collective Statements

Additional NDN tenets:

• “The U.S. government, including the military and police, must be dismantled and abolished” (EPW/Senate 2024).
• “Israel has no right to exist and must be demolished. The NDN Collective considers its anti-Israel advocacy to be a core part of its mission.
• “The United States and Israel are twin evils that must be resisted by a united movement” (EPW/Senate 2024).
• “The NDN Collective embraces their anti-American and anti-Semitic beliefs by designating the United States and Israel as the primary source of the world’s problems” (EPW/Senate 2024). According to Tilsen, “Settler colonialism [the United States and Israel] is the biggest threat to climate [change]” (EPW/Senate 2024).
• “In March, the NDN Collective hosted a webinar that sought to unify radical far-left movements, including the anti-Semitic Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), against the United States and Israel” (EPW/Senate 2024). Lenna Nasr of the PYM recapped the words of NDN panelists, stating, “We really see our role…to confront and dismantle Zionism wherever we find it” (EPW/Senate 2024).

NDN Collective political posterAccording to the Committees report, the NDN Collective “has advised President Biden and his administration on environmental justice issues since the former NDN Director of Policy and Advocacy Jade Begay began serving on the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) in 2021” (EPW/Senate 2024) and held the ear of many top Biden administrative officials. In April 2023, “Biden signed an executive order positioning environmental justice at the center of his administration’s radical policy agenda” (EPW/Senate 2024). Begay has stated, “How do we decolonize something as bureaucratic as federal grants? … This is about shifting power…to change these processes and systems so that equity is at the center of how these types of grants and dollars move into our communities” (EPW/Senate 2024).

 

With a start date of October 1, 2024, and an end date of September 30, 2027, the EPA awarded the “pass-through entity,” the Minneapolis Foundation, $52,000,000.00 in federal funds under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for the NDN Collective to receive and redistribute. Starting as a $40 million in grant funding, later amended to $50,000,000, the Collective claimed it would be “awarding 206 grants over the project period with 30% of awards allocated to tribes and indigenous groups, 25% to rural and remote environmental justice (EJ) communities, and 45% to urban EJ communities” (HigherGov 2025).

NDN Collective Ads

The NDN Collective would use the final $2 million for “administrative costs, hiring contractual support and other overhead.” (HigherGov 2025). A portion of the $2 million would also be allocated for “personnel to support the subawardees as project officers” (HigherGov 2025).

“The Great Lakes grantmaking program (comprised of the Minneapolis Foundation and their partner, NDN Collective)” intended to use the allocated funds to open applications during October 2024 (HigherGov 2025).

Following the congressional report and two weeks after the 2024 presidential election, on Nov 20, 2024, the Climate Justice Alliance issued a press release stating that “the EPA has yet to fulfill its financial obligations and obligate [its 2025] funds” (CJA 11 2024). The CJA then insisted that the Biden Administration and EPA “deliver on the promises of the Inflation Reduction Act and obligate remaining funds to organizations immediately” (CJA 11 2024). The CJS warned that the $50 million dollars for 2025 must be released before President Trump takes office (CJA 11 2024). KD Chavez, the new executive director of the Climate Justice Alliance, further explained:

At a time when communities will likely experience increased devastation from continued climate catastrophes, it’s important that the promise of the Inflation Reduction Act can actually be accessed by the communities that need it most.  …Withholding this funding based on what could be seen as viewpoint discrimination, would set a troubling precedent that undermines our constitutional right to free speech and would also have far-reaching implications for other advocacy organizations representing marginalized and vulnerable populations. (CJA 11 2024)

The Minneapolis Foundation
The Minneapolis Foundation also funnels federal money to social justice organizations under the pretense of public health – and partners with the NDN Collective to do it.

The Minneapolis Foundation was created to partner with nonprofits, facilitate grantmaking, drive research and advocacy, and provide services to donors. It aims to “drive collective action to realize strong, vibrant communities” and “cultivate generosity by taking action on the greatest civic, social, and economic needs” (Mpls Foundation 2024).

In the December, 2024 launch of their Great Lakes Environmental Justice Thriving Communities grantmaking program, the Minneapolis Foundation announced that “Communities in a six-state region may now apply for funding to support environmental justice and public health projects through a new grant program that opens today” (Mpls Foundation 2024). Despite the Congressional report six months earlier, the Foundation proudly announced its partnership with the NDN Collective – who it described as an organization that “creates sustainable solutions ‘on Indigenous terms,’… while fostering a world that is built on a foundation of justice and equity for all people and Mother Earth” (Mpls Foundation 2024).

According to the Foundation, the program “marks a major public investment in local communities that are too often underserved, with a particular focus on rural, urban, and Indigenous communities” using money from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Mpls Foundation 2024). The three-year program involves partnership between the Minneapolis Foundation, the NDN Collective, and two other organizations: the Midwest Environmental Justice Network (MWEJN) – a network that works to increase “impact of environmental justice… organizations based in the tribal nations; and the RE-AMP Network – a relatively inoffensive organization that works to “equitably eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in the Midwest” by “building capacity and funding efforts in rural Midwestern communities on clean energy, air and water quality, and energy efficiency,” and believing “strategy and solutions should be set for the Midwest by Midwesterners,” reflecting “the Midwest” (Mpls Foundation 2024).

The Great Lakes grantmaking program is just one of 11 regional “grantmakers” the EPA chose “to issue subgrants through its national Environmental Justice Thriving Communities program” (Mpls Foundation 2024). The Minneapolis Foundation claims that through this partnership, $40 million in grants will be distributed “to support priorities identified by local communities,” from “clean air and water,” “ensuring all residents have access to healthy food,” “workforce development and training for developing and installing clean technologies,” and “resident-led solutions to environmental justice, extreme weather, and public health challenges”(Mpls Foundation 2024). But was the money ear-marked for those specific causes? R.T. Rybak, President and CEO of the Minneapolis Foundation seemed to downplay limitations, stating, “By helping local groups get access to federal funds, we are delivering much-needed resources so that communities across the Great Lakes region… can pursue the work that matters to them” (Mpls Foundation 2024).

Importantly, the Foundation assured that the door to apply was open to Nonprofit organizations, local municipalities, tribal governments, and institutions of higher education that work in the Great Lakes region. However, no matter the response to the open door invitation, the percentage of rural communities to tribal communities, and despite RE-AMP’s assertion that “Rural communities are disproportionately affected by our society’s biggest challenges,” the partnership planned to distribute 30% of grant funding through this program to Indigenous communities, 25% to rural areas, and 45% to urban areas” (Mpls Foundation 2024). They also planned to hold some funds aside for “invitation-only, noncompetitive grants” (Mpls Foundation 2024). Tilsen added that “This program represents a major shift for Indigenous communities, which have spent years advocating for the resources necessary to create a sustainable future” (Mpls Foundation 2024).

Again, despite the Congressional report six months earlier, the EPA announced on January 15, 2025 that the Minneapolis Foundation and its partners (including NDN Collective) are taking applications for the Great Lakes Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program on a “rolling basis” and “applications submitted by January 31, 2025 will be considered in the first round of reviews” (EPA 2025).

THE NDN COLLECTIVE

NDN Collective press releases identify the network as “an Indigenous-led organization dedicated to building Indigenous power. Through organizing, activism, philanthropy, grantmaking, capacity-building, and narrative change, we are creating sustainable solutions on Indigenous terms” (NDN Collective 1 2025).

In practice, the NDN Collective claims that Mount Rushmore is an “international symbol of white supremacy and racial injustice” built on stolen land (InfluenceWatch 2025). On a July 3, 2020, Tilsen was arrested for his role in a protest near Mount Rushmore prior to President Donald Trump’s Independence Day remarks. His charges included two counts of simple assault against law enforcement officers and second-degree robbery and grand theft, after Tilsen stole a shield from a member of the National Guard. Officers also testified that “Tilsen engaged in physical menacing and made threats against them, in addition to three misdemeanor offenses” (InfluenceWatch 2025). NDN Collective has also used funds to organize get-out-the-vote efforts and voter engagement drives on social media” (InfluenceWatch 2025).

In October of 2020, using a $3 million fund from a Bezos Earth Fund grant, NDN Collective launched the “Landback Campaign… aimed at giving federal lands to tribal organizations” (InfluenceWatch 2025). (Note, number one, the request was for tribal organizations – not tribal communities, and two, except for the Black Hills, most tribes settled the land question with the U.S. Indian Claims Commission over 50 years ago).

Along with demanding federal land grants, the campaign demanded the dismantling of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service (NPS), Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claiming that they all support “white supremacy” (InfluenceWatch 2025).

Despite the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route not running through any federally recognized Native American land, NDN Collective was involved in protests to stop its construction (InfluenceWatch 2025). After President Joe Biden cancelled the pipeline, NDN Collective announced that it would return to protesting “the Dakota Access and Enbridge Line 3 pipeline projects” (InfluenceWatch 2025), despite the DAPL also not encroaching on any tribal land. Interestingly, Tilsen has made no effort to shut down pipelines owned by Native Tribes, including those of Fort Bethold, less than 150 miles north of the Dakota Access line near Bismark.

Beginning in 2021, the NDN Collective started supporting anti-Israel and Palestinian-nationalists. They claimed Israel was a product of “Zionism, settler colonialism, white supremacy, and imperialism” and called for the U.S to stop providing it military aid. (InfluenceWatch 2025).

NDN Collective position statement on Palestine
In 2022, the NDN Collective published a paper by Palestinian journalist Ghassan Kanafani. In the paper, titled, “The Right of Return is Landback,”
Kanafani declared that Israel was the product of “Zionism, settler colonialism, white supremacy, and imperialism” and ends with the phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,” signifying support for the eradication of Israel (InfluenceWatch 2025).

Nonetheless, the organization, Influence Watch, reports that tNDN Collective received “$2,203,226 million in contributions and grants” in 2018, its very first year of operations. In 2019, NDN Collective received $11,369,310, with “$2.5 million from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, $810,000 from the Surdna Foundation, and $400,000 from the Tides Foundation” (InfluenceWatch 2025).

In 2019, NDN Collective received a $12 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund to support environmentalist activism. From this funding, NDN earmarked $9 million to disburse in separate, $100,000 grants to other Native American organizations as a part of NDN’s Self Determination Grant program. The program was meant to fund other organizations “defending native lands against the fossil fuel industry” (InfluenceWatch 2025).

“In the same year, NDN Collective received $750,000 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, $550,000 from the Tides Foundation, $400,000 from the Ford Foundation, and $100,000 from the Libra Foundation. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation also listed a $750,000 grant approved for future contributions to NDN Collective in its 2019 filings” (InfluenceWatch 2025).

NDN also received:
…$300,000 from the Rudolf Steiner Foundation by way of a grant made by the Foundation to the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation with the purpose of supporting NDN Collective. Tilsen left the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation in 2018 to lead NDN Collective” (InfluenceWatch 2025).

In 2020, the Bush Foundation awarded NDN Collective a $500,000 grant for a COVID-19 Response Project. NDN Collective also received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan on April 16, 2020, valued between $150,000 and $350,000” (InfluenceWatch 2025).
Propublica (2025) reports that revenue for the NDN Collective for the period of 2018-2023 totaled $21.6 million. Expenses for the five-year period were $51.1 million. Total assets were $90.8M and liabilities were $19.6 million (Propublica 2025).

NDN Partners, a for-profit organization affiliated with NDN Collective, distributed about 7 million dollars of grants to 200 organizations for NDN Collective (InfluenceWatch 2025). The Collective is a snake with several heads. While registered as a charitable organization, Nick Tilsen calls the collective a “movement infrastructure organization” (InfluenceWatch 2025) or an “NDN Ecosystem.” By the descriptions of the affiliates (Federal Reserve 2018), one wonders if the environment just a side hustle:

NDN Foundation 501(c)(3) – increasing philanthropic investment into Indigenous led organizations, communities, people, tribes, and movements working to create a world that is just and equitable for all people and the planet;
NDN Fund 501(c)(3) – increasing access to capital investments and loans for Indigenous led organizations, communities, people, tribes, and movements working to create a world that is just and equitable for all people and the planet;
NDN Partners LLC – increasing the capacity and skills of Indigenous led organizations, communities, people, tribes, and movements to utilize systems and design thinking to create pathways towards a world that is just and equitable for all people and the planet;
NDN Action 501(c)(3) – advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the environment through organizing, advocating, and building Indigenous-led movements and campaigns;
NDN Action Network 501(c)(4) – advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the environment through direct action, policy, and lobbying efforts” (Federal Reserve 2018).

On December 11, 2024, the NDN Collective announced that it had been selected as “an outreach partner for two regions within the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program (EJ TCGM) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)” (NDN Collective 2024). They were now tasked with outreach to over 400 federally recognized tribes – and distribute “over $200 million to environmental justice communities” (NDN Collective 2024).

Davis Price, Climate Justice Initiative Director at NDN Collective, claimed this was the “…result of decades of advocacy by climate justice advocates to protect our environment and the communities directly impacted by the climate crisis,” and “This funding is urgently needed to confront environmental and public health issues in communities experiencing disproportionate burdens of environmental hazards, and will provide frontline communities with necessary support in adapting to the climate crisis.” (NDN Collective 2024). Nick Tilsen added, “NDN Collective is committed to ensuring this program is executed with its intended purpose – to provide federal resources to historically underserved communities – while continuing our own grantmaking to resource Indigenous-led solutions to the climate crisis” and “We see this program as a robust tool to protect people and the planet…” (NDN Collective 2024).

Grants were intended to support projects that “focus on issues including but not limited to” (NDN Collective 2024):

• Environmental health
• Air, soil, and water quality
• Healthy homes
• Access to healthy food
• Stormwater and green infrastructure
• Emergency preparedness and disaster resiliency
• Environmental job training

On January 22, 2025, the NDN Collective announced “Wizipan Little Elk Garriott will serve as the organization’s new president. Founder Nick Tilsen will continue to serve as CEO” (NDN Collective 1 2025). Garriott is:

Sicangu Lakota and served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs in the U.S. Department of the Interior from 2021 – 2024. In this role, he served as the first assistant and principal advisor to the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs, in the development and interpretation of policies affecting Indian Affairs bureaus, offices, and programs. (NDN Collective 1 2025)

Garriott stated, “The opportunity to continue to work on behalf of Indian country at NDN Collective is a blessing. I’m honored to join such an amazing team driving and connecting grassroots, on-the-ground work with national movements and policies” (NDN Collective 1 2025).

On January 29, 2025, NDN released a press release stating the application period was “opened for NDN Collective’s 2025 Community Action Fund (CAF). For the past five years, this grant has supported direct action and frontline organizing across Turtle Island (North America: US, Canada, and Mexico) and related Island Nations, including Boriken/Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands” (NDN Collective 2025). The press release stated:

The Community Action Fund (CAF) furthers Indigenous Peoples’ mobilization strategies as it relates to the defense, development, and decolonization of people and Mother Earth. This $250,000 fund is available to support such efforts in 2025, with grants up to $20,000. The CAF has provided urgent funding for efforts including Stop Cop City on Ohlone land, resisting pipelines, organizing for the release of political prisoner Leonard Peltier, protection of sacred sites, defense of lands and water, and providing resources for climate change response efforts. (NDN Collective 2025)

Tina Kuckkahn, Managing Director of NDN’s Foundation, added that with

…the escalating climate crisis displacing people across the globe – from wildfires ravaging Tongva land aka Los Angeles, to deadly floods from Turtle Island to Libya, and so much more – it is more urgent than ever to support efforts to defend our lands, waterways and peoples. The courage, fortitude and determination of our people unites us with a sense of hope and solidarity, propelling us forward in the movement during these prophetic times. (NDN Collective 2025)

Funding Canceled by the Trump Administration
On February 13, 2025, a press release from the Climate Justice Alliance announced the EPA’s cancellation of the Climate Justice Alliance Grant. Completely ignoring the revealed behavior of their partners, KD Chavez, Executive Director of CJA, declared,

The Administration continues its attacks on working class communities, rural and urban families with its announcement of the cancellation of the Climate Justice Alliance’s UNITE-EJ program grant. Unfortunately, the Biden administration failed to process these obligated funds intended to help communities facing disasters from climate change and left the decision in the hands of the Trump administration. Despite claims that this administration will protect clean water and clean air for the nation it has attacked basic protections for neglected communities from day one. (CJA 2 2025)

Chavez further claimed the UNITE-EJ program “would have channeled resources into projects that not only protect public health and safety but also create sustainable economic opportunities for jobs” (CJA 2 2025).

Conclusion

On February 28, after a month of overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency as it scoured the waste of Washington DC, Elon Musk reported on the Joe Rogan radio show:

George Soros is like a systems hacker. He has figured out how to hack the system. He is a genius at arbitrage, …He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a non-profit… then lobby the politicians to send a ton of money to that non-profit so you can take what might be …a $10 million dollar donation to a non-profit… and leverage that into a $1 billion dollar NGO.” …”Then the government continues to fund that every year, …and it will have a nice sounding name like ‘The Institute for Peace’ or something like that. But really …it’s a graft machine. (Musk 2025)

In light of what some members of Congress and the organization, Influence Watch, have uncovered concerning NDN Collective, NDN is a textbook example of what Musk is referring to.

This is the first in a series of papers discussing the breadth of corruption in Indian Country. Corruption does not help average tribal members or their families. It uses them as mere pawns in the game – with no genuine regard for well-being. As said in the introduction of this paper, “economic development in Indian Country” requires not only “the establishment of financial institutions and proper stewardship of resources,” but very importantly, it requires “proper oversight, accountability and audit.” Corruption that flows to and through tribal entities with the help of federal dollars must not only be discussed but stopped.

References

BBB. “Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation.” Better Business Bureau. 2025. https://www.bbb.org/us/sd/pine-ridge/profile/payday-loans/wakpamni-lake-community-corporation-0714-300075893 (accessed 3 2, 2025).

Board of Gov Federal Reserve. “About the Fed.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Jan 31, 2025. https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed.htm (accessed 2 23, 2025).

Board of Govs Federal Reserve. “Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Mar 28, 2024. https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/cra_about.htm (accessed 2 22, 2025).

—. “Federal Reserve Act.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. March 10, 2017. https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm (accessed 2 22, 2025).

Casey Family. “About Us.” Casey Family Programs. 2025. https://www.casey.org/who-we-are/about/ (accessed 2 23, 2025).

CJA. “Climate Justice Alliance Calls on Biden Administration, EPA to Deliver Inflation Reduction Act’s Remaining Funds Immediately.” Climate Justice Website. Nov 20, 11 2024. https://climatejusticealliance.org/climate-justice-alliance-calls-on-biden-administration-epa-to-deliver-inflation-reduction-acts-remaining-funds-immediately/ (accessed 2 13, 2025).

—. “Climate Justice Alliance, Members, and Partners Receive $50 Million Award from EPA to Increase Access to Federal Funds for Environmental Justice Communities.” Climate Justice Alliance. Dec 20, 2023. https://climatejusticealliance.org/cja-receives-50-million-thriving-communities/ (accessed 2 12, 2025).

—. “EPA Cancels Climate Justice Alliance Grant.” Climate Justice Alliance. Feb 13, 2 2025. https://climatejusticealliance.org/epa-cancels-climate-justice-alliance-grant/ (accessed 2 13, 2025).
DataRepublican. “Federal Grant Research – Oweesta Corp.” Data Republican. Feb 19, 2025. https://datarepublican.com/award_search/?keywords=oweesta (accessed 2 19, 2025).

DeDios, Jeanette. Indigenous leaders call for better practices around tribal data sovereignty . Nov 15, 2024. https://www.kunm.org/local-news/2024-11-15/indigenous-tribal-data-sovereignty (accessed 2 19, 2025).

Ecoffey, Brandon. “Oglala man’s business dealings under scrutiny.” Native Sun News. Aug 19, 2014. https://indianz.com/News/2014/014790.asp (accessed 2021).

EPA EJ TCGM. “The Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program.” EPA – Environmental Protection Agency. 2025. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justice-thriving-communities-grantmaking-program (accessed 2 23, 2025).

EPA. “Environmental Justice.” EPA – Environmental Protection Agency. 2025. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice (accessed 2 12, 2025).

—. “Region 5 Grantmaker: Great Lakes Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program.” EPA: Enviromental Justice. Jan 15, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/region-5-grantmaker-great-lakes-environmental-justice-thriving-communities (accessed 2 12, 2025).

EPW/Senate. “Investment in Radical Activists: A Case Study on the NDN Collective, Supported by the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act.” US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Edited by Shelley Moore Capito. July 23, 2024. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/f/cf21df85-56ef-404c-a484-dc4f71c2ae39/AA62FE480253EB01FA71B5BC32EC0A89.ndn-collective-final-report-epw-committee-7-23-2024.pdf (accessed Feb 13, 2025).

Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis: Center for Indian Country Development. Feb 12, 2025. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/indiancountry/ (accessed 2 12, 2025).

—. “Native American Financial Institutions Gathering.” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Aug 27, 2018. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/-/media/files/community/indiancountry/events/2018-08/nafippt.pdf (accessed 2 21, 2025).

Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. Capitalism and Freedom. 40th. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Greager, Kimberly. “Tilsen steps down at Thunder Valley .” Native Sun News Today. Feb 14, 2018. https://www.nativesunnews.today/articles/tilsen-steps-down-at-thunder-valley/ (accessed 2 27, 2025).

HigherGov. “Cooperative Agreement 01E03682.” HigherGov. 2025. https://www.highergov.com/grant/01E03682/#activity_timeline (accessed 2 22, 2025).

InfluenceWatch. “NDN Collective.” Influence Watch. Feb 12, 2025. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/ndn-collective/ (accessed 2 12, 2025).

Justia. “GREEN v. WLCC II et al.” Justia. Jul 2024, 2024. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/indiana/insdce/1:2024cv01178/215804 (accessed 3 2, 2025).

—. “Rainey v. WLCC Lending JEM et al.” Justia. Feb 19, 2025. https://dockets.justia.com/search?query=wakpamni (accessed 3 2, 2025).

Lozar, Casey. “Message from Director Casey Lozar: Moving forward in Indian Country .” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Feb 25, 2020. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2020/message-from-director-casey-lozar-moving-forward-in-indian-country (accessed 2 21, 2025).

Morris, Elizabeth. The Fallacies Supporting Current Federal Indian Policy. Fargo: Unpublished, 2025, 20.

Morris, Elizabeth. “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.” Scholars Crossing, 8 2019: 337 .

—. “The Predatory yet Lucrative Indian Industry.” Dying in Indian Country. Oct 26, 2020. https://dyinginindiancountry.com/2020/10/26/the-predatory-yet-lucrative-indian-industry/.
Mpls Fndn. “Great Lakes Environmental Justice Thriving Communities grantmaking program.” Minneapolis Foundation. 2024. https://www.minneapolisfoundation.org/great-lakes/ (accessed 2 12, 2025).

Mpls Foundation. “$40 Million Available for Environmental Justice Grants.” Minneapolis Foundation. Dec 5, 2024. https://www.minneapolisfoundation.org/stories/climate/40-million-available-for-environmental-justice-grants/ (accessed 2 13, 2025).

Musk, Elon, interview by Joe Rogan. “#2281 – Elon Musk.” The Joe Rogan Experience . (Feb 28, 2025).

NDN Collective. “NDN Collective Announces New President.” NDN Collective. Jan 22, 1 2025. https://ndncollective.org/ndn-collective-announces-new-president/ (accessed 2 12, 2025).

—. “NDN Collective Selected As Outreach Partner For Major EPA Grants.” NDN Collective. Dec 11, 2024. https://ndncollective.org/ndn-collective-selected-as-outreach-partner-for-major-epa-grants/ (accessed 2 12, 2025).

—. “NDN COLLECTIVE’S 2025 COMMUNITY ACTION FUND APPLICATION PERIOD OPENS.” NDN Collective. Jan 29, 2025. https://ndncollective.org/ndn-collectives-2025-community-action-fund-application-period-opens/ (accessed 2 12, 2025).

PaceMonitor. “Rushin v. Black Hawk Financial et al.” PaceMonitor. Aug 23, 2024. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/54825587/Rushin_v_Black_Hawk_Financial_et_al (accessed 3 2, 2025).

PMP. Public Money Pod: Public finance among tribal nations, with Casey Lozar. Vers. Episode 15. Center for Municipal Finance. Sept 30, 2024. https://player.captivate.fm/episode/a3820080-d5a2-4dac-b521-0ccebb027902 (accessed 2 19, 2025).

Propublica. “Ndn Collective Inc.” Propublica. Feb 12, 2025. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/823776329 (accessed 2 12, 2025).

Regan, Shawn. “5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty.” Forbes. 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-government-keeps-native-americans-in-poverty/#739501c6cc62 (accessed 12 16, 2016).

Rose, Jonathan. “The Federal Reserve and Native American Communities: A Brief History.” Federal Reserve History. Federal Reserve. July 12, 2023. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/native-american-communities (accessed 2 20, 2025).

Rosner, Elizabeth, and Aaron Feis. “Private-eye firm claims Hunter Biden is linked to multiple criminal probes.” New York Post. Dec 23, 2019. https://nypost.com/2019/12/23/hunter-bidens-baby-mama-says-hes-linked-to-multiple-criminal-probes/ (accessed 2021).

Sam.gov. “Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program (EJ TCGM).” SAM.gov. 2024. https://sam.gov/fal/e9fa9290278e49d5a6a2dd7e4dc71e5a/view (accessed 2 12, 2025).

Shipley, William. “Should Hunter Biden Be in Jail? Another Look at the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe Securities Fraud Case.” Red State, Oct 19, 2020.

Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics. New York: Perseus Books Group, 2009.
Trahant, Mark. “Nick Tilsen Steps Down as CEO of Thunder Valley Corp To Lead NDN Collective.” Indian Country Today. 3 2020, 2018. https://ictnews.org/archive/nick-tilsen-steps-ceo-thunder-valley-corp-lead-ndn-collective (accessed 2 28, 2025).

U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020.

U.S. HSGAC – Finance Committees. Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns. Joint Report, Washington DC: U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report, 2020.

US Census Bureau. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 2010. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, US. Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: US. Dept of Commerce, 2010.

US Census Bureau. US Census. Statistics, US Census Bureau, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Dept of Commerce, 2000.

Wakpamni Lake Community. ewakpamni. 2020. https://www.ewakpamni.com/corporation (accessed 3 2, 2025).

Waste, Ernestine Anukasan. “Reservation community responds.” Native Sun News Today. Feb 6, 2020. https://indianz.com/News/2020/02/06/native-sun-news-today-reservation-commun.asp (accessed 2021).

 

Read More

References from Influence Watch
1. Action Network, “Petition to Close Mt. Rushmore and Return All Public Lands in the Black Hills to THE OCETI SAKOWIN.” accessed February 7, 2021, https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/petition-to-close-mt-rushmore-and-return-all-public-lands-in-the-black-hills-to-the-oceti-sakowin.
2. NDN Collective July 2020 Newsletter. NDN Collective. https://ndncollective.org/newsletters/july-2020-newsletter/
3. Vincent Schilling. “NDN Collective offers millions to tribes, Indigenous nonprofits, artists and entrepreneurs.” Indian Country Today. April 27, 2020. Accessed via Web Archive. Captured February 7, 2021. http://web.archive.org/web/20200508003756/https:/indiancountrytoday.com/news/ndn-collective-offers-millions-to-tribes-indigenous-nonprofits-artists-and-entrepreneurs-DZwVRkJ5b0ChDHSyhYlxig.
4. Steven Mufson, “Bezos makes first donations from $10 billion Earth Fund for fighting climate change.” Washington Post. November 16, 2020. Archived from the original February 7, 2021. Accessed February 7, 2021. http://web.archive.org/web/20210207131336if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/11/16/bezos-climate-grants/
5. “Right of Return is Landback.” NDN Collective. Accessed December 5, 2024. https://ndncollective.org/right-of-return-is-landback/.
6. “NDN Collective Calls for Cease Fire, End of Military Aid to Israel.” NDN Collective. October 19, 2023. Accessed December 5, 2024. https://ndncollective.org/ndn-collective-calls-for-cease-fire-end-of-military-aid-to-israel/.
7. Michael Kavate. “Native American Activists Make Gains, but Philanthropy ‘Continues to Scratch the Surface.’” Inside Philanthropy. Accessed via Web Archive. Archived July 7, 2020. http://web.archive.org/web/20200728183601/https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2020/7/28/native-american-activists-make-gains-but-philanthropy-continues-to-scratch-the-surface.
8. KOTA Staff. “NDN Collective gets awarded $12M from Jeff Bezos.” KOTA TV. November 26, 2020. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://www.kotatv.com/2020/11/26/ndn-collective-gets-awarded-12m-from-jeff-bezos/.
9. Arielle Zionts. “Mount Rushmore protest leader charged with two felonies.” Rapid City Journal. July 6, 2020. https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/mount-rushmore-protest-leader-charged-with-two-felonies/article_363e00b2-3a22-5de9-937f-2c518d3c5b6d.html.
10. Action Network, “Petition to Close Mt. Rushmore and Return All Public Lands in the Black Hills to THE OCETI SAKOWIN.” Accessed February 7, 2021. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/petition-to-close-mt-rushmore-and-return-all-public-lands-in-the-black-hills-to-the-oceti-sakowin.
11. NDN Collective July 2020 Newsletter. NDN Collective. https://ndncollective.org/newsletters/july-2020-newsletter/.
12. NDN Collective June 2020 Newsletter. https://ndncollective.org/newsletters/june-2020-newsletter/.
13. Nick Tilsen. “Our Voices Won’t Be Silenced.” NDN Collective. April 12, 2019. Accessed via Web Archive. Captured November 28, 2020. http://web.archive.org/web/20201128212155/https://ndncollective.org/our-voices-wont-be-silenced-fighting-the-sd-riot-boosting-act-and-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/.
14. Arielle Zionts. “South Dakotans show mixed reactions to halting oil pipeline.” Rapid City Journal. February 1, 2021. https://www.wral.com/south-dakotans-show-mixed-reactions-to-halting-oil-pipeline/19494470/?version=amp.
15. Stuart Huntington. “Doubling Down on Native Values.” Indian Country Today. November 25, 2020. Accessed February 7, 2021, https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/doubling-down-on-native-values-45uW-FHqq0GecLZIhH4leg.
16. Landback Campaign Manifesto. Accessed from Web Archive. Febaruary 8, 2020. https://landback.org/manifesto/
17. “NDN Collective Responds to Inauguration of President Joe Biden.” NDN Collective Press Release. January 21, 2021. https://ndncollective.org/ndn-collective-responds-to-inauguration-of-president-joe-biden/.
18. “Investment in Radical Activists: A Case Study on the NDN Collective Supported by the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Accessed December 5, 2024. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/f/cf21df85-56ef-404c-a484-dc4f71c2ae39/AA62FE480253EB01FA71B5BC32EC0A89.ndn-collective-final-report-epw-committee-7-23-2024.pdf.
19. “NDN Collective.” Twitter. December 25, 2023. Accessed December 5, 2024. https://x.com/ndncollective/status/1739270120541692086.
20. “Nick Tilsen.” NDN Collective, January 26, 2021. https://ndncollective.org/people/nick-Tilsen/.
21. “Nick Tilsen.” Thunder Valley CDC. Accessed February 18, 2021. https://thundervalley.org/learn-more/our-team/nick-Tilsen.
22. Arielle Zionts. “Tilsen Case Heading to Trial after Judge Finds Probable Cause.” Rapid City Journal Media Group. last modified October 1, 2020. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/Tilsen-case-heading-to-trial-after-judge-finds-probable-cause/article_df671a98-7c24-5503-8381-9c218e69828b.html.
23. Grant Pritchett. “Tilsen’s defense seeks training, pre-deployment materials in July 3 protest near Mt. Rushmore.” Rapid City Journal. December 18, 2020. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/Tilsens-defense-seeks-training-pre-deployment-materials-in-july-3-protest-near-mt-rushmore/article_0820746b-bfdf-5965-8c11-583b01265bb0.html.
24. “Kim Pate.” NDN Collective, January 26, 2021. https://ndncollective.org/people/kim-pate/.
25. “Board of Directors.” NDN Collective. Accessed February 18, 2021. https://ndncollective.org/groups/board-of-directors/.
26. “Jade Begay.” NDN Collective. Accessed December 5, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadebegay/.
27. NDN Collective, Return of an Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990), 2019, Part I, Line 8. https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2019/823/776/2019-823776329-17224955-9.pdf.
28. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Inc., Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2019, Attachment 17, Page 10 of 26.
29. The Surdna Foundation, Inc. Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2018, Part XV.
30. Tides Foundation, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990), 2018, Schedule I, Part II.
31. Rudolf Steiner Foundation, Return of an Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990), 2018, Schedule I, Part II.
32. Mark Trahant. “Nick Tilsen Steps Down as CEO of Thunder Valley Corp to Lead NDN Collective.” Indian Country Today. March 20, 2018. https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/nick-Tilsen-steps-down-as-ceo-of-thunder-valley-corp-to-lead-ndn-collective-eHJ8HVHPLEalh0oK5yUqzQ.
33. Steven Mufson. “Bezos makes first donations from $10 billion Earth Fund for fighting climate change.” Washington Post. November 16, 2020. Archived from the original February 7, 2021. Accessed February 7, 2021. http://web.archive.org/web/20210207131336if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/11/16/bezos-climate-grants/.
34. Stuart Huntington. “Doubling Down on Native Values.” Indian Country Today. November 25, 2020, accessed February 7, 2021. https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/doubling-down-on-native-values-45uW-FHqq0GecLZIhH4leg.
35. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2019, Part XV.
36. Tides Foundation, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990), 2019, Schedule I, Part II.
37. Ford Foundation, Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2019, Part XV.
38. The Libra Foundation, Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2019, Part XV.
39. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Return of a Private Foundation (Form 990-PF), 2019, Part XV – Contributions Approved for Future Payment.
40. “Grant for NDN Collective.” Bush Foundation. Accessed February 8, 2021. https://www.bushfoundation.org/grantees/2020-ndn-collective.
41. “NDN Collective, Inc.” Coronavirus Bailouts. ProPublica. Accessed February 8, 2021. https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/ndn-collective-inc-0d2b01ebb068c0b3215a64baf1b57b50.
42. Vincent Schilling. “NDN Collective offers millions to tribes, Indigenous nonprofits, artists, and entrepreneurs.” Indian Country Today. April 20, 2020. https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/ndn-collective-offers-millions-to-tribes-indigenous-nonprofits-artists-and-entrepreneurs-DZwVRkJ5b0ChDHSyhYlxig.
43. Request for Information from Qualified Vendors for Support Services. NDN Collective. PDF Document. Accessed February 8, 2020. https://ndncollective-org.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/app/uploads/2020/04/COVID-RFI-SM.pdf.
44. The NDN COVID-19 Response Project. “Phase I Completed.” NDN Collective. Accessed February 8, 20201. https://ndncollective.org/covid-19/.
45. NDN Press Release. “NDN Collective Awards $4.5 million in grants to 105 Indigenous-led projects for transition & resilience.” NDN Collective. December 16, 2020. Accessed via Web Archive. February 8, 2021. http://web.archive.org/web/20210208164007/https://ndncollective.org/ndn-collective-awards-4-5-million-in-grants-to-105-indigenous-led-projects-for-transition-resilience/.
46. “NDN Foundation.” Cause IQ Organizational Profile. Accessed February 8, 2021. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/ndn-foundation,832724212/.
47. NDN Collective June 2020 Newsletter. NDN Collective. https://ndncollective.org/newsletters/june-2020-newsletter/.
48. NDN Collective November 2020 Newsletter. NDN Collective. https://ndncollective.org/newsletters/november-2020-newsletter/.
49. “NDN Fund.” Cause IQ Organization Profile. Accessed February 8, 2021. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/ndn-fund,832763481/.
50. “NDN Action.” Cause IQ Organizational Profile. Accessed February 8, 2021. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/ndn-fund,832763481/.
51. “NDN Action Network.” Cause IQ Organizational Profile. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/ndn-fund,832763481/.

 

Will you support L.K. and A.S.’s twin babies? GiveSendGo

 Comments Off on Will you support L.K. and A.S.’s twin babies? GiveSendGo
Oct 082024
 
https://caicw.org

This appeal concerns two Indian children, twins who now are two years old. Both children needed immediate medical attention following birth. Despite the wishes of the Red Lake Nation, the birth mother favors continued placement with K.R. and N.R.  Thus, the case name reflects the names of the birth parents – In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K. and A.S., Parents.

LINK:  CAICW Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners

LINK:  Various Family Stories over the years

Why This Case Matters:

  • The 2023 Brackeen opinion indicates that the path this case is taking to the US Supreme Court is the path they preferred.
  • Constitutional Concerns: ICWA violates the Tenth Amendment by commanding state officers to administer a federal regulatory program, which is seen as an overreach by federal law into state jurisdiction.
  • Child Welfare: The placement preferences under ICWA do not always align with the best interests of the child or the direct wishes of parents.
  • Rights of Parents: Parents should have a voice in the best interest of their children.

According to the last three US censuses, 75% of tribal members DO NOT live in Indian Country. Many have taken their families and left due to the high incidence of crime and abuse. Some families moved away decades ago. Further, most children of tribal heritage are multi-heritage – meaning they may have a parent, grandparent and other relatives who they love but who are not enrolled tribal members.

LINK:  Watch video clip; Mother says her tribe kidnapped her baby through ICWA

Nevertheless, the ICWA claims jurisdiction over children that are merely ELIGIBLE for enrollment, regardless of their background and preferences. This means that even if parents do not enroll their children, the tribal government still has jurisdiction if the child is “in need of care” and more right to take custody of a child than a beloved non-tribal aunt. In some cases, even non-tribal grandparents have been denied custody. In some cases, even enrolled relatives have been denied custody if they have turned their backs on tribal government.

However, ‘In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K. and A.S., Parents‘, is headed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. CAICW was invited to write an Amicus brief in support of the petitioners. You can read CAICW’s amicus here:

LINK:  CAICW Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners

Why We Need Your Support:

  • Legal Costs: While the attorney for the parents is pro-bono, there are ancillary expenses We need funds to cover paralegals, expert witnesses, and other legal expenses to ensure a robust defense.
  • Public Awareness: Your contribution will help us educate the public and policymakers about the importance of ICWA, ensuring widespread understanding and support.
  • Setting Precedents: By supporting this case, you’re not just aiding one legal battle; you’re contributing to a broader movement for justice, recognition, and rights for Native children.

Minneapolis attorney Mark D. Fiddler, of Fiddler Osband Flynn LLC., is known nationally for his work concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act and is the lead attorney for the appellants/petitioners.

CAICW is a national 501c3. Donations to cover legal fees for the family are tax deductible. As has been done before, unless specified for CAICW, 100% of donations will be sent directly to the family’s attorneys (In this case, Fiddler Osband Flynn LLC.)

How You Can Help:

  • Donate: Any amount you can contribute will make a difference. Your donation ensures we have the resources to fight this case with vigor.
  • Spread the Word: Share our cause on social media, talk about it in your community, and help us reach more potential supporters.
  • Volunteer: If you have skills in social media or fundraising, we could use your expertise.

Join Us: Your support can make history, ensuring that Native children have rights and protections equal to that of every other child in the United States.

Act Now: We have set up a fund dedicated to this legal battle. Every dollar you contribute goes directly towards defending the rights of these children:

  • Donate Online: Visit https://www.givesendgo.com/CAICW to make a secure donation
  • Check Contributions: Make checks payable to the CAICW legal fund and mail to CAICW, PO Box 46, Hillsboro, ND 58045

Thank you in advance for your generosity and for standing with us in this crucial moment. Together, we can defend the rights of generations yet to come.

Warm regards,

Elizabeth Morris

Chair, Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare

###

 

About the Author:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004.  Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris was also a Commissioner on the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.’  After holding several hearings in regions across the country, the Commission submitted its Final Report and Ms. Morris submitted her Minority Report to Congress in February 2024.

Ms. Morris earned her Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University.  Her Master Thesis is titled: ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; an Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

CAICW.org

X.com/CAICW

Facebook.com/CAICW.org

Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

Sep 092024
 
https://caicw.org

This appeal concerns two Indian children, twins who now are two years old. Both children needed immediate medical attention following birth. The boy remained in the hospital while suffering withdrawal symptoms. The girl was not breathing when born but was revived by medical providers and transferred to the neonatal intensive-care unit at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, where she was placed on a ventilator and put into “medically induced hypothermia cooling” to reduce seizures and protect her brain.

Three days after the children were born, the county petitioned for an order adjudicating the children as being in need of protection or services (CHIPS). Within days, the district court filed an order transferring care, custody, and control of the children from their birth parents (L.K. and A.S) to the county and granting the county authority to determine an out-of-home placement.

The boy was discharged from the hospital when he was 11 days old and was placed in the home of K.R. and N.R., who are non-Indian licensed foster-care providers. The girl was discharged when she was 37 days old and also was placed in K.R. and N.R.’s home.

The district court’s emergency-protective-care order noted that the children are eligible for enrollment with the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and that ICWA applies. In mid-May 2022, a representative of the Red Lake Nation filed an affidavit stating that the tribe supports an out-of-home placement. After their placements, both children required numerous appointments at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester as well as in-home visits from medical professionals. The in-home therapy plan included monthly physical therapy, quarterly occupational therapy, and quarterly early-childhood-specialist services. K.R. and N.R. cared for the children as foster parents for more than a year. K.R. and N.R. stated in an affidavit that the county represented to them that they were the preferred long-term placement for the children.

LINK:CAICW Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners

On August 1, 2023, the county informed K.R. and N.R. that the Red Lake Nation had stated a preference that the children be placed with a relative of the birth mother. The relative has physical and legal custody of the children’s older sibling. Throughout August 2023, the county, the Red Lake Nation, the guardian ad litem, and K.R. and N.R. engaged in numerous communications concerning a plan to transition the children from K.R. and N.R.’s care to Red Lake. However, the relative did not complete the transition plan. Nevertheless, on September 1, 2023, the Red Lake Nation stated that it wanted the children to be transitioned to the relative’s care as soon as possible.

On September 9, 2023, the county informed K.R. and N.R. that the children would be transferred on September 13, 2023. On September 12, 2023, K.R. and N.R. filed an emergency motion for permissive intervention into the CHIPS case, a stay of the change of placement, a finding that good cause exists to not change the placement despite the expressed preference of the Red Lake Nation, and a declaration that ICWA and MIFPA are unconstitutional.

K.R. and N.R. urged the district court to stay the placement on the grounds that 1) the transition plan had not been implemented, 2) that the relative was unfamiliar with the children’s medical needs, 3) that the change of placement would result in the children being further away from the birth mother (L.K.), and that the birth mother favors continued placement with K.R. and N.R.

After a brief recess, the district court orally ruled that the children should immediately go to the Red Lake reservation and that a written order would follow. On September 15, 2023, the district court filed an order in which it denied K.R. and N.R.’s motion to stay the change of placement. On October 4, 2023, K.R. and N.R. filed an amended motion for permissive intervention and a petition for third-party custody. Further appeals are now in process.

LINK: Various Family Stories over the years

    Why This Case Matters:
  • The 2023 Brackeen opinion indicates that the path this case is taking to the US Supreme Court is the path they preferred.
  • Constitutional Concerns: ICWA violates the Tenth Amendment by commanding state officers to administer a federal regulatory program, which is seen as an overreach by federal law into state jurisdiction.
  • Child Welfare: The placement preferences under ICWA do not always align with the best interests of the child or the direct wishes of parents.
  • Rights of Parents: Parents should have a voice in the best interest of their children.

According to the last three US censuses, 75% of tribal members DO NOT live in Indian Country. Many have taken their families and left due to the high incidence of crime and abuse. Some families moved away decades ago. Further, most children of tribal heritage are multi-heritage – meaning they may have a parent, grandparent and other relatives who they love but who are not enrolled tribal members.

LINK: Watch video clip; Mother says her tribe kidnapped her baby through ICWA

Nevertheless, the ICWA claims jurisdiction over children that are merely ELIGIBLE for enrollment, regardless of their background and preferences. This means that even if parents do not enroll their children, the tribal government still has jurisdiction if the child is “in need of care” and more right to take custody of a child than a beloved non-tribal aunt. In some cases, even non-tribal grandparents have been denied custody. In some cases, even enrolled relatives have been denied custody if they have turned their backs on tribal government.

However, ‘In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K. and A.S., Parents‘, is headed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. CAICW was invited to write an Amicus brief in support of the petitioners. You can read CAICW’s amicus here:

LINK:CAICW Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners

    Why We Need Your Support:
  • Legal Costs: While the attorney for the parents is pro-bono, there are ancillary expenses We need funds to cover paralegals, expert witnesses, and other legal expenses to ensure a robust defense.
  • Public Awareness: Your contribution will help us educate the public and policymakers about the importance of ICWA, ensuring widespread understanding and support.
  • Setting Precedents: By supporting this case, you’re not just aiding one legal battle; you’re contributing to a broader movement for justice, recognition, and rights for Native children.

Minneapolis attorney Mark D. Fiddler, of Fiddler Osband Flynn LLC., is known nationally for his work concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act and is the lead attorney for the appellants/petitioners.

CAICW is a national 501c3. Donations to cover legal fees for the family are tax deductible. As has been done before, unless specified for CAICW, 100% of donations will be sent directly to the family’s attorneys (In this case, Fiddler Osband Flynn LLC.)

    How You Can Help:
  • Donate: Any amount you can contribute will make a difference. Your donation ensures we have the resources to fight this case with vigor.
  • Spread the Word: Share our cause on social media, talk about it in your community, and help us reach more potential supporters.
  • Volunteer: If you have skills in social media or fundraising, we could use your expertise.

Join Us: Your support can make history, ensuring that Native children have rights and protections equal to that of every other child in the United States.

Act Now: We have set up a fund dedicated to this legal battle. Every dollar you contribute goes directly towards defending the rights of these children:

  • Donate Online: Visit https://www.givesendgo.com/CAICW to make a secure donation, or use the widget below
  • Check Contributions: Make checks payable to the CAICW legal fund and mail to CAICW, PO Box 46, Hillsboro, ND 58045

Thank you in advance for your generosity and for standing with us in this crucial moment. Together, we can defend the rights of generations yet to come.

Warm regards,

Morris Chairwoman/Administrator Twin Babies Legal Fund PO Box 460 Hillsboro, ND 58045 CAICW.org

Please Donate Here:

Minority Report: Congressional Commission on Native Children

 Comments Off on Minority Report: Congressional Commission on Native Children
Mar 132024
 
child abuse

To the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate:

Pursuant to the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children authorizing legislation (Public Law 114-244), October 14, 2016, as amended, I respectfully submit a Minority Report of the Commission on Native Children.

This report attempts to include the perspective of those Native Americans who live outside of the reservation system and do not use any form of tribal benefit or program.  Indeed, about 75% of Native Americans do not live on reservation land or participate in reservation politics.  As a result, countless families of Native American heritage are not heard through methods normally employed by those assessing the needs of the United States’ native population. 

This is significant as legislation and administrative rules often include them and their children, whether they have chosen to be involved with the reservation system or not.  

With their voices in mind, this report presents additional recommendations, several of which were presented to the Commission but were not put forward for discussion or vote.

Due to the strength of an ‘iron triangle’ encompassing federal Indian policy, it is necessary to submit this minority report.

READ: Minority Report to the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

 

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Morris, Commissioner

Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

About the Author:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris was also a Commissioner on the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.’ After holding several hearings in regions across the country, the Commission submitted its Final Report and Ms. Morris submitted her Minority Report to Congress in February 2024.

Ms. Morris earned her Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University. Her Master Thesis is titled: ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; an Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

CAICW.org
X.com/CAICW
Facebook.com/CAICW.org
Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

The Cult of Advocacy: Comments on the State of Legal Scholarship

 Comments Off on The Cult of Advocacy: Comments on the State of Legal Scholarship
Nov 012022
 

By Rob Natelson – October 23, 2022 – Independence Institute.org

This posting relates some experiences from my long career writing for legal academic journals. It was triggered by Professor Gregory Ablavsky’s response to my “Cite Check” of his article, Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause (“Beyond”), and I use features of that response for some of my examples. But if you are interested only in a shortcut telling you who is being accurate in the Natelson-Ablavsky exchange, then I recommend the following:

*          Read his quoted extracts from Beyond and from his Fifth Circuit appeals court brief. They are in the Cite Check, which cites to the original documents so you can verify the accuracy of my reproductions.

*          Next, read the quotation in the original source. These also are reproduced in the Cite Check.

*          Compare the original source with how Ablavsky represented it. The differences should be apparent to any fair minded person. And the reasons behind the differences should be obvious.

The Larger Context: The Cult of Advocacy

That said, the fundamental problem addressed here goes far beyond selective quotation. It is that much—likely most—law review writing is not scholarship at all; it is advocacy in scholarly drag.

The passionate desire to “prove the case” creates incentives to engage in selective quotation. It also fosters other questionable practices: enlisting irrelevant evidence, ignoring and manipulating relevant evidence, and substituting word play for more substantial material. More rarely, you find what appears to be outright plagiarism, as I discovered recently in a law professor’s article in American University Law Review.

The cult of advocacy encourages commission of such misdemeanors, and they are further enabled by how legal academia hires law professors, defines their jobs, and operates law journals.

First Experiences

In 1971, I was a second year law student beginning a stint on the Cornell Law Review.  One day a senior editor (i.e., a third year student) assembled us newbies and told us we should start working on our student notes. (A note is a short article on a legal topic by a student law journal staffer.) He handed us a list of suggested topics prepared by the senior editors. Most or all of the topics explicitly prescribed our conclusions. The one I (reluctantly) accepted read something like, “Explain why the New York courts should grant summary judgment more readily in personal injury cases.”

After researching every relevant case, I concluded that, in fact, New York State courts should not grant summary judgment more readily in personal injury cases. I reported this to a senior editor, and that proved to be one step in the deterioration of my relationship with the editorial board.

Another step occurred when I was sent to the library to edit an article by a law professor from another school. The text of the article was substantially complete, but the footnotes contained many gaps. Quite a few featured the instruction, “Student: Find sources to support text.” When I inquired as to why we had accepted such an unfinished and obviously biased article, a member of the editorial board told me the…

READ MORE –

– https://i2i.org/the-cult-of-advocacy-comments-on-the-state-of-legal-scholarship-with-examples-from-professor-ablavskys-latest-response/

Did the Spirit Lake Tribe use ICWA to kidnap a baby from birth mom?

 Comments Off on Did the Spirit Lake Tribe use ICWA to kidnap a baby from birth mom?
Jul 012022
 
Mother testifies before Commission on Native Children June 2022

Tribe used ICWA to serve its own purpose, at the expense of a mother

“I didn’t want ICWA involvement. I hadn’t lived on the reservation for almost four years at that time and I had told social services that I wanted my case to stay in Grand Forks. It was my home. It was my child’s domicile. I had the right to choose. …[ICWA] stripped me as a parent of my rights. …I worked my case. I did everything that Spirit Lake social services required me to do, but I did it on my own…. My tribe, that was supposed to help me, that was supposed to keep my family together; ICWA that was supposed to be – the goal is reunification…there was no reunification. My reunification wasn’t there, and my tribe took that from me. …Those rights I was given as a U.S. citizen, my rights under federal guidelines, my rights under state guidelines, all those rights I’m afforded as a citizen, I wasn’t given. …I had to watch my daughter – and all my kids – I have to watch them from the sidelines, and it breaks my heart.”
– Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice and Violence Panel, Great Plains & Midwest Regional Hearing, Bismarck, June 24, 2022

Watch video clip of her testimony – (23 minutes):

About the Author:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris was also a Commissioner on the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.’ After holding several hearings in regions across the country, the Commission submitted its Final Report and Ms. Morris submitted her Minority Report to Congress in February 2024.

Ms. Morris earned her Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University. Her Master Thesis is titled: ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; an Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

CAICW.org
X.com/CAICW
Facebook.com/CAICW.org
Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

Is the Indian Child Welfare Act an Unconstitutional Attack on Freedom?

 Comments Off on Is the Indian Child Welfare Act an Unconstitutional Attack on Freedom?
Mar 082022
 
ICWA
.

.

Adapted from the thesis
Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences
of the Indian Child Welfare Act
,’

by Elizabeth Morris*

.

PDF: The Indian Child Welfare Act: An Unconstitutional Attack on Freedom 

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” and the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” (Congress 1787).  But for almost 200 years, the U.S. federal government has assumed a power that deprives members of federally recognized Indian tribes of these privileges – and for almost a century, the federal government has claimed wardship over U.S. citizens who happen to be tribal members.

Yet, despite the nineteenth century U.S. federal court rulings that propagated this view, disagreement continues as to whether tribes located within the United States are indeed sovereign, whether Congress has plenary power over them, and whether individual tribal members have U.S. Constitutional rights.

  • Some tribal officials argue that international law should not have been forced upon non-European cultures that had no say in it. Others point to natural law and international law – the grounds for treaties between nations – as basis for uninterrupted tribal sovereignty.
  • Some tribal representatives argue that the Constitution has no authority over tribes or tribal members. Others cite the Constitution when seeking judicial redress for their community.
  • Some historians say the Constitution never gave Congress anything more than the power to regulate trade with tribes. Others claim the Constitution not only gave Congress total and exclusive plenary power to decide almost every aspect of life in Indian Country – but by unstated extension, gave the executive branch this power as well.
  • Some say treaties promise a permanent trust relationship. Others point out that most treaties have clearly specified final payments of federal funds and benefits and were written and signed with clear intent for gradual assimilation.

Where Does the Plenary Authority of Congress Come From?

Law professor Robert G. Natelson writes, “For many years, Congress has claimed, and the Supreme Court has conceded, a plenary power over American Indian tribes” (2007, 204).  But, according to Natelson, there are problems with how historical documents have been construed.  Legal scholar Matthew L. M. Fletcher agrees and notes that the origin of federal authority over Indian tribes is unclear, as the Constitution carried no “clear textual provisions” concerning such power. Due to that lack, the Supreme Court has created a body of “unwritten constitutional law” (Fletcher 2006, 654).  Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s 2004 majority opinion in United States v. Lara is an example of Congressional authority in dealing with Indian affairs being categorized as “beyond the strictures of the Constitution” (Fletcher 2006, 656).

Authority is not Inherited from Britain

This unwritten authority, according to Natelson, is said by some to have been inherited from the British Crown, which transmitted “extraconstitutional sovereign authority to the Continental Congress, which then passed it to the Confederation Congress, which in turn conveyed it to the federal government” (2007, 204). However, Natelson argues:

As a matter of historical record, the British Crown did not transfer its foreign affairs powers to the Continental Congress, but to the states. The Confederation Congress did not receive its authority from the Continental Congress, but from the states. The federal government did not receive its powers from the Confederation Congress, but from the people (R. Natelson 2007, 205-206).

Natelson further contends that case law does not support the doctrine of inherent plenary authority. The Supreme Court “has acknowledged the [plenary] theory, but only rarely and in limited respects” (R. Natelson 2007, 204). He added, “The Supreme Court’s reluctance to fully accept inherent sovereign authority is understandable, for the doctrine is fundamentally unconvincing. It clashes with the Constitution’s underlying theory of enumerated powers and would render some enumerated powers redundant.” (R. Natelson 2007, 205).

Natelson explained that the dicta of Chief Justice Marshal and others has frequently been cited as recognizing Congress’s plenary authority over Indian Affairs – but it does not (R. Natelson 2007, 204). Other cases often cited are similarly lacking.  “A passage in Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford[1] suggests an inherent sovereignty theory, but later in the opinion Taney made it clear that he was invoking an enumerated power” (R. Natelson 2007, 204).   Natelson explained further, “Kansas v. Colorado (1907),[2] the Supreme Court’s clearest pronouncement on inherent sovereign authority in internal affairs, actually rejected the doctrine. United States v. Curtiss-Wright resuscitated it, but only for foreign affairs. In 2004, the Court suggested an application to Indian concerns, but the Court’s language was neither definitive nor necessary to its decision” (R. Natelson 2007, 205).

Lastly, if inherent authority had in fact existed in any context when the federal government was created, Natelson clarifies its fate: “[T]he doctrine of inherent sovereign authority is simply contradicted by the text of the Constitution. Any extra-constitutional authority inhering in the federal government in 1789 was destroyed two years later, when the Tenth Amendment became effective. By its terms that Amendment precluded any federal power beyond those bestowed by the Constitution… precisely to re-assure Anti-Federalists who feared that the new government might claim powers beyond those enumerated” (R. Natelson 2007, 206-207).

Authority is not from the U.S. Constitution

Another theory is that plenary authority comes from within the Constitution itself. Several Constitutional powers are suggested, including the War Power; the Executive Power; the Necessary and Proper Clause; the Treaty Clause; the Territories and Property Clause; and the Indian Commerce Clause.  However, Natelson contends “…[M]ost of those provisions can be readily dismissed” (R. Natelson 2007, 207).  For example, Natelson states that if it were true that the Territories and Property Clause, were the source of plenary power:

…then legal title to this land is federal ‘property’ subject to congressional management under the Territories and Property Clause, and such title would give Congress at least some jurisdiction over the minority of Indians who reside on reservations. But this begs the question of the source of authority for holding reservation land in trust. As already noted, pre- or extraconstitutional power is not a viable answer. Nor, as originally understood, is the Territories and Property Clause, for that Clause originally granted Congress the unlimited power to dispose of federal lands within state boundaries, but not the unlimited capacity to retain or acquire such lands. As for the treaty power, it happens that not a single Indian treaty provides that the government has retained or acquired trust title to the reservation. The sole references to trust arrangements in Indian treaties are peripheral provisions, such as temporary trusts incident to sale and trusts to fund Indian schools and other amenities (R. Natelson 2007, 209-210).

Just one theory for the origin of plenary power remains. Felix Cohen, in his ‘Handbook of Federal Indian Law,’ states that Congress has power over tribes through the Indian Commerce Clause as long as members are wards of the government (Cohen [1942] 1971, 353). A large body of law has been written in support of this.

Authority is not from the Commerce Clause, specifically

The United States Constitution was written to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the People.  As part of that protection, the Constitution needed to clarify roles and responsibilities necessary for the promotion of a stable and productive economy. The founding fathers understood that regulation of commerce was a proper function of government, and regulation of interstate and international commerce was a proper function of federal government. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers vested in the federal government to regulate commerce between lower and foreign political entities:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes… (Congress 1787). [stresses added]

The commerce clause is one of the Constitution’s central pillars. It prevented states from setting up trade barriers, while at the same time not giving the federal government complete power.  In protecting markets, the commerce clause is at the heart of what has become one of the “largest common markets in the world” (Weingast 1995, 8). But this clause also contains one of the limited mentions of tribes within the Constitution.  The third point within the Commerce Clause refers to Congress’ power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Congress 1787, Art. 1 Sec 8).

The United States Constitution goes on to reserve all other rights and powers to the people and to the States. Amendment IX declares that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and Amendment X declares “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Congress 1787).

Despite these clarifying amendments, the Bureau of Indian Affairs claims “Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government,” with exclusive authority over the tribes (BIA, 2013). Constitutional Law Attorney Philip J. Prygoski also affirms Congress’s constitutional power to regulate commerce with tribal governments and states the “Indian Commerce Clause” is the primary power source and vehicle for Congress to define tribal sovereignty (Prygoski 2015).

Yet Natelson asks, “[W]hy were treaties understood for so long as the principal method of dealing with tribes if Congress could regulate all affairs under the ICC?” (R. Natelson 2019). Indeed, why were treaties necessary if the Constitution had already given Congress power over the tribes?

In his historical research, Natelson found that the “drafting history of the Constitution, the document’s text and structure, and its ratification history all show emphatically that the Indian Commerce Power was not intended to be exclusive” to the federal government. He further notes, “Throughout the Colonial and Revolutionary period, colonies and states frequently entered into treaties with Indians within their territorial limits. New York even appointed treaty commissioners after the Constitution had been issued and ratified” (R. Natelson 2007, 223).  Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, and William Samuel Johnson, also alluded to this state authority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes inside their borders (R. Natelson 2007, 225).

State authority over commercial regulation aside, United States v. Kagama (1886)[3] “rejected the Indian Commerce Clause as a source of plenary congressional authority” (R. Natelson 2007, 210).  The Supreme Court stated “it would be a ‘very strained construction’ of the Commerce Clause to conclude that it authorized creation of a federal criminal code for Indian country” (R. Natelson 2007, footnote 65, at 210 ).  Kagama  “did recognize unenumerated federal power over Indian affairs, but the Court’s justification was Indian dependency on the federal government, not inherent sovereignty” (R. Natelson 2007, 204-205).

Patent attorney Nathan Speed notes that when Congress first began asserting authority over tribes beyond trade, the Indian Commerce Clause was not cited as the source of that authority.  Further, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Clause was the source of plenary power over tribes (Speed 2007).

Nevertheless, according to Cohen, the Clause has become “the most often cited basis for modern legislation regarding Indian tribes” [ (LexisNexis 2005, 397) ] In the case Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, (1989), it was stated that “the central function of the Indian Commerce Clause is to provide Congress with plenary power to legislate in the field of Indian affairs” (R. Natelson 2007, 211).

Many have argued that the Founding Fathers intended the word “commerce” within the cited clause to refer not just to merchant trade, but to all economic activity and even beyond to any and every transaction.  Natelson contends that a meaning that expansive would not belong in a list of ‘enumerated’ powers. However, this argument persists, and being so pervasive, several studies have recently examined how the word was employed in constitutional, lay, and legal contexts “before and during the Founding Era” (R. Natelson 2007, 214).

Those studies[4] found that “‘commerce’ meant mercantile trade, and that the phrase ‘to regulate Commerce’ meant to administer the lex mercatoria (law merchant) governing purchase and sale of goods, navigation, marine insurance, commercial paper, money, and banking (R. Natelson 2007, 214). Natelson states:

In both lay and legal discourse in the 18th Century, the term “commerce” “was almost always a synonym for exchange, traffic, or intercourse. When used economically, it referred to mercantile activities: buying, selling, and certain closely-related conduct, such as navigation and commercial finance (2006).

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence in United States v. Lopez, (1995)[5], agreed, stating:

At the time the original Constitution was ratified, ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes. See 1 S. Johnson, A. Dictionary of the English Language 361 (4th rev. ed. 1773)[6] (defining commerce as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of anything; trade; traffick”); T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1796) (“Exchange of one thing for another; trade, traffick”). This understanding finds support in the etymology of the word, which literally means “with merchandise.” See 3 Oxford English Dictionary 552 (2d ed. 1989) (com–“with”; merci–“merchandise”). In fact, when Federalists and Anti Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably (United States v. Lopez 1995).

Thomas quoted his Lopez comments in his concurrence in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013), and added, “The term ‘commerce’ did not include economic activity such as ‘manufacturing and agriculture,’ ibid., let alone noneconomic activity such as adoption of children” (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 2013). Thomas also cited Natelson nine times in his concurrence.

“Thus,” Natelson writes, “‘commerce’ did not include manufacturing, agriculture, hunting, fishing, other land use, property ownership, religion, education, or domestic family life.” In fact, the Federalists during the Constitution’s ratification explicitly maintained that “all of the latter activities would be outside the sphere of federal control” (R. Natelson 2007, 214-215). He adds in his article concerning the legal meaning of the Commerce Clause, “The fact that other uses of the term “commerce” existed during the pre-ratification and post-ratification periods, does not change the accepted general meaning of the word ‘commerce’” (R. G. Natelson 2006, 789, 811)

Finally – and most obvious – the word ‘commerce’ could not have had a broader meaning for Indian tribes than it had for States and foreign Nations, which are located in the exact same clause (R. Natelson 2007, 215). Natelson notes, “I have been able to find virtually no clear evidence from the Founding Era that users of English varied the meaning of “commerce” among the Indian, interstate, and foreign contexts” (R. Natelson 2007, 216).  The United States government has not asserted plenary jurisdiction over state and international actors in the same manner it has tribes and tribal members.

Natelson further asks “If a broad power was intended, why use the same word for Indians as was used for foreign nations and interstate commerce? Why not use instead the readily available and traditional phrase ‘Indian affairs’?” After all, he notes, the writers of the Constitution were meticulous in the word usage and “knew about the presumption of the same word not changing meaning” (R. Natelson 2019). Natelson wrote in 2019:

Edmund Randolph’s list of powers that can be exercised under the Commerce Clause with foreign nations, interstate commerce, and Indian tribes is a list of examples of common kinds of regulation within the three categories.  It does not define different scopes. For example, Randolph speaks of restricting the travel of merchants with the Indians, but he could have used exactly the same example for merchants with foreign countries, as in the case of embargoes (R. Natelson 2019).

Attorney Krystal V. Swendsboe concurs, quoting Vielma v. Eureka Co.,[7] “When the terms of a statute are ambiguous, we will employ cannons of statutory construction to discern the legislature’s intent…In the absence of some indication to the contrary, we interpret words or phrases that appear repeatedly in a statute to have the same meaning’(citations omitted) ” (Swendsboe 2019) and in Clark v. Martinez,[8] “To give th[e] same words a different meaning for each category would be to invent a statute rather than interpret one” (Swendsboe 2019).

Assistant Professor of Law, Gregory Ablavsky, agrees and stated: “[T]he history of the Indian Commerce Clause’s drafting, ratification, and early interpretation does not support either ‘exclusive’ or ‘plenary’ federal power over Indians. In short, Justice Thomas is right: Indian law’s current doctrinal foundation in the Clause is historically untenable”  (Ablavsky 2015).

The final draft of the Constitution gave James Madison, a nationalist, less authority than he had wanted for the federal government and the ratification process reduced the powers even further. But even with this, not even Madison “suggested granting Congress plenary dominion over the Indians. His proposal was for Congress to ‘regulate affairs with the Indians’—to govern transactions between tribes and citizens. Yet this still was more than the convention, or the public, was willing to accept”  (R. Natelson 2007, 258).  Fellow delegate, John Rutledge of South Carolina, instead suggested to the Committee of Detail a federal power concerning Indians that “stripped down Madison’s proposal to a mere commerce power” (R. Natelson 2007, 258).

Among the issues defined by the Federalists as outside of congressional regulation (and therefore, under state jurisdiction) were “crimes malum in se (except treason, piracy, and counterfeiting), family law, real property titles and conveyances, inheritance, promotion of useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights, control of personal property outside of commerce, torts and contracts among citizens of the same state, education, services for the poor and unfortunate, licensing of public houses, roads other than post roads, ferries and bridges, and fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises” (R. Natelson 2007, 248-249).

To summarize, the Indian Commerce Clause was included to give Congress the power to regulate trade between tribes and non-tribal members.  It gave Congress the ability to override state laws, but not to abolish or alter “pre-existing state commercial and police power over Indians within state borders” (R. Natelson 2007, 265).  The Commerce Clause did not establish a ‘Trust status” authorizing a pupilage condition.  Nor did it grant Congress a plenary police power over tribal members or a license to interfere in Indian affairs.

Natelson concludes, “…the results of textual and historical analysis militate overwhelmingly against the federal government having any ‘inherent sovereign power’ over Indians or their tribes” and “…the Founders intended the states to retain their broad residual police power” (R. Natelson 2007, 266).

One of the most Damaging Results of Unconstitutional Congressional Authority: The Indian Child Welfare Act

Tribal member and Family Law Attorney Mark Fiddler examines the constitutional ramifications of the Indian Child Welfare Act through the lens of the case, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, and various State ICWA laws.  He explains that one of the questions asked in Adoptive Couple was “if a birth father has no rights under state law, what specifically is it in ICWA that accords him greater federal rights?” (2014, 3).

The attorneys for the birth father and Cherokee Nation had argued that the constitutional issues did not apply and cited Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), in which the Supreme Court had construed that preferential treatment for Native Americans was based on their unique political status, not on their heritage. Attorneys for Adoptive Couple, however, argued that “differential treatment predicated solely on “ancestral” classification violates equal protection principles” and cited Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 at 514, 517 (2000). When unequal treatment is predicated on a status unrelated to social, cultural, or political ties, but rather blood lineage, the ancestry underpinning membership is “a proxy for race.” Rice, 528 U.S. at 514.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his Adoptive Couple concurrence, cited Professor Rob Natelson’s white paper concerning the Commerce Clause and the unconstitutionality of the ICWA. Justice Thomas explained he was construing the statute narrowly to avoid opening the door to rule the ICWA unconstitutional. But he noted, “In light of the original understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause, the constitutional problems that would be created by application of the ICWA here are evident. First, the statute deals with “child custody proceedings,” §1903(1), not ‘commerce’” (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 2013).

While the court did not address the constitutional issues, Fiddler believes that “…at a minimum, Adoptive Couple stands as a clear signal from the Court that the application of ICWA, and perhaps other Indian preference statutes, cannot be based merely upon a person’s lineal or blood connection with a tribe. Something more is required. In Adoptive Couple, it was the requirement of parental custody” (Fiddler, Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance 2014, 7-8).

Families and children are not ‘commerce’ with Indian tribes and thus are not legitimately dealt with under the Indian Commerce Clause, yet tribal attorneys continue to claim ICWA is constitutional, and some assert a right to claim any child they choose as a member. In reference to Baby Girl, Chrissi Nimmo, Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation stated, “… we repeatedly explained that… tribes can choose members who don’t have any Indian blood” (Rowley 2015).

The increased push for jurisdiction over other people’s children has increased the push back from those who hold the ICWA is unconstitutional.  Swendsboe states in her amicus brief concerning the 2018 ICWA case Brackeen v. Bernhardt:

Because adoption proceedings like this one involve neither “commerce” nor “Indian tribes,” there is simply no constitutional basis for Congress’ assertion of authority over such proceedings. Also, the notion that Congress can direct state courts to apply different rules of evidence and procedure merely because a person of Indian descent is involved raises absurd possibilities. Such plenary power would allow Congress to dictate specific rules of criminal procedure for state-court prosecutions against Indian defendants. Likewise, it would allow Congress to substitute federal law for state law when contract disputes involve Indians. But the Constitution does not grant Congress power to override state law whenever that law happens to be applied to Indians. Accordingly, application of the ICWA to these child custody proceedings would be unconstitutional (Swendsboe 2019).

ICWA: Necessary for the Child’s Well-being …or the Tribal Government’s?

Often cited as justification for the ICWA is a 1998 pilot study by Carol Locust, a training director at the Native American Research and Training Center at the University of Arizona College of Medicine.  Locust’s study is said to have shown that “every Indian child placed in a non-Indian home for either foster care or adoption is placed at great risk of long-term psychological damage as an adult” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998).

Referring to the condition as the “Split-feather Syndrome,” Locust claims to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998).  The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “Split-feather syndrome” during Locust’s limited study (DHS 2005). The MDHS did not mention that there were only twenty, hand-picked participants in the study. All twenty adoptees were removed from their biological families and placed with non-native families. There were no control groups to address other variables.

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” According to Cleaveland:

Locust asserts that out-of-culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects (Cleaveland 2015).

Cleaveland concluded, “Sadly, because many judges and attorneys, and even some caseworkers and other professionals, are not familiar with the research, results that may be very wrong are leading to the wrong outcomes for children” (Cleaveland 2015).

While supporters of ICWA often cite “Split-feather Syndrome” as proof the ICWA is in the best interest of children, and some children and families faced with foster care, adoption or child custody disputes have felt protection through the ICWA, others have felt forced into relationship with tribal governments – and some have been forced into dangerous, abusive homes  (Morris 2019, 194-221, 237-251)[9].

Federal government has focused on how the ‘child drain’ has affected tribal governments and the future of the tribe as an entity but has paid little attention to the children themselves: their needs, passions and diversity of individuals affected by federal Indian policy – many of whom have spiritual beliefs, political views, or parental practices unlike those promoted by the tribal government.  There is no acknowledgement that most of the children eligible for tribal membership are multi-racial and live outside of Indian Country. Not only are the views of individual tribal members dissimilar to each other, but it is also unarguable that children of slight tribal heritage have many more non-tribal relatives than they have tribal relatives – and might actually be bonded to non-tribal relatives.

The “best interest” that select federal agencies appear to be more concerned with is that of the tribal government.  The Obama administration’s ICWA rules in 2016 prejudicially assumed it is always in the best interest of a child to be under jurisdiction of tribal government, even if parents and grandparents have chosen to raise them in an alternative environment and worldview. The 2016 rules marginalize the rights of birth parents as well the reality of extended tribal and non-tribal birth family.

Yet, the Obama ICWA rules were long called for by tribal leaders.  Tribal governments, using ‘wardship’ and ‘trust relationship’ as revenue vehicles, requested Congress enact legislation giving increased control over certain vulnerable children to tribal governments and have repeatedly returned to DC to insist Congress make the resultant ICWA even more stringent – covering more people and closing all “loopholes” for escape. When some members of Congress recognized the overreach and constitutional implications of ICWA amendments and blocked them from passage, tribal leaders went to the White House to insist on the strict regulation of independent families through the executive branch – even going so far as to accuse some families of committing ‘fraud’ by not admitting they had tribal heritage.

Tribal leaders have also asked state governments to take responsibility for ensuring larger numbers of children and families remain within the reservation system – even if against the will of the children and families – and state governments have acquiesced.  Ironically, in doing this, tribal leaders, under the premise of strengthening jurisdiction over children of heritage, have essentially admitted their lack of it.  In going to Congress and the president with the expectation and demand that they do something about grounding enrollable children to the reservation system, tribal leaders have admitted they lack the authority and are willing to submit to the sovereign authority of the United States of America. They have also essentially admitted that the best interest of children and families are second to the best interest of the tribe as a corporation.

Conclusion

The national dilemma has become whether an individual’s right to privacy, constitutional equal protection, and freedom of association are of less priority than tribal sovereignty and the future of a tribe.

Too many within federal government choose to please political leaders and protect tribal interests and sovereignty rather than save children’s lives. The federal government has reduced children to the status of a ‘resource’ for tribal governments, just as the private property of individual tribal members has been relegated to the control of the BIA as a resource for tribal governments. Children are treated as material assets, and adults are treated as children. Throughout history and every heritage, various men have coveted power over others.  Today, tribal governments, while accepting and playing into Congress’ claim of plenary power, have themselves, also, claimed exclusive jurisdiction and authority over unwilling citizens. Tribal governments regularly lobby and petition both Congress and the White House to codify tribal jurisdiction over the lives, liberty, and property of everyone within reservation boundaries as well as some outside reservation boundaries.  While claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction, tribal governments have paradoxically requested and given blessing for the federal government to manage children of tribal heritage – asking Congress to write the Indian Child Welfare Act and the executive branch to write federal rules governing the placement of every enrollable child in need of care. Some tribal governments and supportive entities have gone further – asking even governors and state legislators to expand on and strengthen control over children with heritage.

Independent political communities have a legitimate right to determine their own membership. However, basing that determination on an individual’s heritage and then forcing the individual into political affiliation because of that heritage is the epitome of racism.  While family and community are important to children of every culture, tribal government claims that eligible children are lost without tribal culture infer there is something inherently different about children of tribal heritage as opposed to other children.  Recognition that children of every heritage are individuals with their own wants, needs and goals is quashed.

While it is unarguable that a certain amount of strain occurs when traversing disparate cultures, children from around the world are successfully and happily adopted into American homes on a regular basis. Yet, it has become accepted belief that children of tribal heritage are, as a rule, unable to thrive outside of Indian Country. The evidence is to the contrary. The vast majority of tribal members live outside of reservation boundaries, and many are living happy and successful lives.  Meanwhile, according to statistics provided by numerous tribal organizations, the BIA, FBI, and ACF, crime and physical, and sexual abuse have been steadily worsening on many reservations – even with reservation crime and child abuse frequently under-reported.

A concerned community does not wait for additional studies to act on an obvious and immediately known danger.  We do not wait for a study to rush a child out of a burning building. When a child is bleeding to death, we know to immediately put pressure on the wound and get the child to a hospital. Unwillingness to deal effectively with the immediate needs of children suffering extreme physical or sexual abuse from extended family or community – no matter where it is – casts doubt on tribal and federal government assertions that safety of the children is of paramount importance. These ten statements are not absolute to all reservations and individuals, but clarify the general reality witnessed:

  • Crime and child abuse are rampant on many reservations
  • Crime and child abuse are rampant because the U.S. Government has set up a system that allows for extensive abuse and crime to occur unchecked and without repercussion.
  • Because a certain amount of crime has been allowed to occur unchecked, many families who desire a safer community for their children (not all) have moved away from the reservation system.
  • At the same time, gang related tribal members remain or move to the reservation because it is protected from state police. With the increase in gang activity there is an increase in crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, child neglect, child abuse, and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
  • As a result of the migration off the reservation, tribal governments experience a drop in federal funds.
  • As an increasing percentage of healthier families leave the reservation system, an increasing percentage who remain willingly participate in the crime and abuse.
  • As a result of increasing crime and child abuse, more children are in need of care.
  • Some tribal governments are reticent to admit they no longer have enough safe homes to place children in, and not wanting to place the children off the reservation, have placed children in questionable and even dangerous homes.
  • It appears more important to some in federal government as well as some in tribal government to protect tribal sovereignty than it is to protect children.
  • In other words, there seems to be a protection of tribal sovereignty at all costs – even at the cost of children’s lives.

In contrast, the following five points clarify self-evident truths that policy makers need to know:

  • International law and treaties are valid and relevant
  • Life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness are rights endowed by the Creator to all men equally, no matter their heritage.
  • The vast majority of tribal members live outside of reservation boundaries, and many are living happy and successful lives.
  • A wide body of research confirms that foster care children of every heritage experience higher levels of emotional and psychological trauma.
  • A growing body of work by legal and historical researchers is finding current federal Indian policy unconstitutional

Although the ICWA has some statutory safeguards to prevent misuse, numerous families continue to be hurt by the law.  While the ICWA itself states it is not to be used in custody battles between birth parents, parents can refuse tribal court jurisdiction, non-tribal grandparents have the same rights as tribally enrolled grandparents, and courts can deviate from placement preferences with “good cause,” what has played out in various state and tribal courts has not always followed the wording and intent of the law. Further, wording in a law is of no help if one does not have the money to hire an attorney who knows Indian law. Many times, families fighting ICWA are low income.  Further, many non-tribal courts do not understand the law and defer to the tribal court. The ICWA has given some tribal leaders, social services, and tribal courts a sense of entitlement when it comes to children of heritage.

The era of the Indian Child Welfare Act will become one of the numerous shames in American history. While many have been led to believe the ICWA is a righteous law, the reality is that powerless citizens have again been placed under subjugation.

If the ICWA were to remain law, it would require several amendments:

  • Children of tribal heritage need protection equal to that of any other child in the United States. State health and welfare requirements for foster and adoptive children should apply equally to all. Importantly, those assigned to child protection, whether federal, state, county or tribal, need to be held accountable if a child is knowingly left in unsafe conditions. (Title 42 USC 1983).
  • Fit parents, no matter their heritage, should have the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage or the overriding wishes of tribal or federal government. US Supreme Court decisions upholding family autonomy under 5th and 14th Amendment due process and equal protection include Meyer vs. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Brown v. Board of Education.
  • The ‘Existing Indian Family Doctrine’ should be available to families and children who choose not to live within the reservation system. Alexandria had held that “recognition of the existing Indian family doctrine [was] necessary to avoid serious constitutional flaws in the ICWA”. Thus, if the existing Indian family doctrine has already been ignored in current ICWA cases, then serious constitutional flaws may have already occurred.
  • United States citizens, no matter their heritage, are guaranteed civil rights which include fair hearings. When summoned to a tribal court, parents, and legal guardians, whether enrolled or not, should be fully informed of their rights, including 25 USC Chapter 21§1911(b), which states “Transfer of proceedings [to tribal jurisdiction]” will occur only “…in the absence of good cause to the contrary, [or] objection by either parent….” The rights of non-member parents must be upheld. According to 25 USC Chapter 21§1903(1)(iv), ICWA placement preferences “shall not include a placement based … upon an award, in a divorce proceeding, of custody to one of the parents.” ICWA placement preferences also include all grandparents – no matter the heritage. Finally, non-members must be able to serve county and state summons to tribal members within reservation boundaries and must have access to appeal.
  • A “qualified expert witness” must be someone who is able to advocate for the well-being of the child, first and foremost, not a tribe. An expert witness needs to be a professional person with substantial education and experience in the area of the professional person’s specialty and significant knowledge of and experience with the child, his family – and the culture, family structure, and child-rearing practices the child has been raised in. There is nothing a tribal social worker inherently knows about a child based on nothing more than the child’s ethnic heritage. This includes children of 100% heritage who have been raised apart from the tribal community. A qualified expert witness needs to be someone who has not only met the child, but has worked with the child, is familiar with and understands the environment the child has thus far been raised in and has professional experience with some aspect of the child’s emotional, physical, or academic health. This is far more important than understanding the customs of a particular tribe.
  • Finally, if tribal membership is truly a political rather than racial designation, than the definition of an “Indian” child is one who is “enrolled” in the tribe, not merely “eligible.”

Allowing tribal governments the right to determine their own membership at the expense of the rights of any other heritage or culture as well as at the expense of individual rights is indeed political. However, relatives being told these children are suddenly now members of an entity with which the family has had no political, social, or cultural relationship betrays the reality that at least in the case of their child, “race” is determining membership.

Keeping children, no matter their blood quantum, in what a State would normally determine to be an unfit home – solely on the basis of tribal government claims that European values do not apply to and are not needed by children of tribal heritage – is racist in nature and a denial of the child’s personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Tribal members are not just U.S. citizens; they are human beings. They are not chattel owned by tribal governments or servants indentured to the success of tribal governments, nor are they lab rats for Congress, pawns to be used at the negotiating table, or zoo exhibits for patronizing tourists looking for entertainment.

Even if a child had significant relationship with tribal culture, forced application of ICWA conflicts with the Constitution. There is nothing within the U.S. Constitution nor any treaty that gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals stay connected to a tribe, support a particular political viewpoint, or raise their children in a prescribed culture or religion.

For this reason, the ICWA cannot remain law. Natelson has shown that the ICWA goes far beyond the limited scope of the Indian Commerce Clause.  While some tribal members appreciate that proper application of the Constitution means that Congress has no plenary power over tribal affairs, it also means that Congress has no power to enact laws such as the ICWA.

In light of constitutional issues inherent to the foundational enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the ICWA must be repealed. The Commerce Clause does not give Congress plenary authority over tribes or children of heritage, and tribal governments do not have the authority to force membership onto individuals, no matter their age.

Allowing individuals to employ their full constitutional rights would preserve to citizens their God-given right to individuality, liberty, and property, which is what the United States government is tasked to do.  In the words of Dr. William Allen, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, MSU and former Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

 “… We are talking about our brothers and our sisters. We’re talking about what happens to people who share with us an extremely important identity. And that identity is the identity of free citizens in a Republic…” (2010)[10]

###

.

*ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris was also a Commissioner on the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.’ After holding several hearings in regions across the country, the Commission submitted its Final Report and Ms. Morris submitted her Minority Report to Congress in February 2024.

Ms. Morris earned her Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University. Her Master Thesis is titled:‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; an Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book,‘Dying in Indian Country.’

 

.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)

[2] Kansas v. Colorado 206 U.S. 46 (1907)

[3] United States v. Kagama 118 U.S. 375, 378 (1886)

[4] See generally Randy E. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 ARK. L. REV. 847 (2003); Randy E. Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. CHI. L. REV. 101 (2001); (R. Natelson, The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause 2007, Supra note 2, 214 )

[5] United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 585, 586, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995)

[6] (reprint 1978)

[7] 218 F.3d 458, 464–65 (5th Cir. 2000)

[8] 543 U.S. 371, 378 (2005)

[9] SEE The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act: ‘ICWA Case Studies’ and ‘Child Abuse.’

[10] Dr. William B. Allen’s keynote speech at the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’s  ICWA Teach-In, titled ‘Indian Children: Citizens, not Cultural Artifacts,’ on  October 28, 2011, in the chambers of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

 

REFERENCES

Ablavsky, Gregory. “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1012, 1017.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. No. 12–399 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013).

Allen, William B. “ICWA Teach-in, Keynote.” Washington DC: CAICW, 10 2010.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmation (Brackeen v. Zinke, 2018). 4:17-CV-00868 (U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, February 2019).

Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.

Cohen, Felix S. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1942. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, [1942] 1971.

DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.

Fiddler, Mark. “Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance.” Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum (Minnesota State Bar) 22, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 10.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “The Iron Cold of the Marshall Trilogy.” N.D. Law Rev (Michigan State University College of Law) 82 (2006): 627.

LexisNexis. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. LexisNexis, 2005.

Locust, Carol. Split Feather Study. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

Morris, Elizabeth. “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.” Scholars Crossing, 8 2019: 337. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

Natelson, Rob. “Constitutional Law Professor.” Email Correspondence. 1 22, 2019.

Natelson, Robert G. “The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause.” St. John’s Law Review 80 (2006): 789, 805–06.

Natelson, Robert. “The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Denver University Law Review 85 (2007): 201.

Prygoski, Philip J. “From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court’s changing stance on tribal sovereignty.” GP Solo Magazine, 7 2, 2015.

Rowley, Sean. 43rd Symposium on the American Indian at Northeastern State University . April 17, 2015. http://m.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/icwa-discussed-at-symposium-seminar/article_08846b3a-e543-11e4-8421-7744ec7971c6.html?mode=jqm (accessed April 20, 2015).

Speed, Nathan. “Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Boston University Law Review, 2007, 87 ed.: 467, 470-71.

United States. “Constitution.” Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. 1787. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/.

United States v. Lopez. 93-1260 (U.S.S.C., 4 26, 1995).

Weingast, Barry R. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1995: 1-31.

CAICW.org
X.com/CAICW
Facebook.com/CAICW.org
Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

Wiley Files Amicus Brief in High-Profile Supreme Court Case on Behalf of Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and Former ICWA Children and Families

 Comments Off on Wiley Files Amicus Brief in High-Profile Supreme Court Case on Behalf of Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and Former ICWA Children and Families
Oct 172021
 

October 11, 2021

Washington, DC – Wiley, a preeminent DC law firm, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Brackeen v. Haaland. The brief was filed in support of adoptive families and states in this high-profile case, which urges the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision involving the rights of Native American children and their families under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). The brief was joined by seven individual signatories who are former ICWA children or are parents to ICWA children, all of whom have been harmed by ICWA.

Wiley partner Stephen J. Obermeier and associate Krystal B. Swendsboe, who authored the amicus brief, are members of the firm’s Issues and Appeals Practice and are representing the nonprofit Alliance on a pro bono basis.

The case, which stems from a child-custody dispute, addresses the harm suffered by Indian children and their families as a result of ICWA – such as the denial of the full range of rights and protections of the federal and state constitutions to the petitioners when subjected to tribal jurisdiction under the ICWA.

“For nearly fifty years, ICWA has imposed race-based classifications on Indian children and their families – a clear violation of Equal Protection – and has caused horrendous individual suffering as a result,” Obermeier and Swendsboe explained in the Alliance’s brief.

As noted in the brief, this case raises particularly significant issues for Alliance because its members are birth parents, birth relatives, foster parents, and adoptive parents of children with varying amounts of Indian ancestry, as well as tribal members, individuals with tribal heritage, or former ICWA children – all of whom have seen or experienced the tragic consequences of applying ICWA’s race-based distinctions. The brief includes, as examples, stories from the individual amicus signatories who have been harmed by ICWA’s race-based distinctions and discriminatory placement preferences.

In addition to violating the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the ICWA exceeds the authority granted to Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, according to the amicus brief.

Congress “may not exercise power over family and custody matters under the guise of regulating commerce with Indian Tribes,” the brief argued. “ICWA, therefore, exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce, as it is entirely unrelated to commerce and intrudes on noncommercial subjects belonging entirely to the states.”

https://www.wiley.law/pressrelease-Wiley-Files-Amicus-Brief-in-High-Profile-Supreme-Court-Case-on-Behalf-of-Christian-Alliance-for-Indian-Child-Welfare-and-Former-ICWA-Children-and-Families

UPDATE: Brackeen Partial Victory for Kids, Despite Tribal Leaders Continuing Demand that Congress Retain Plenary Control OVER EVERYONE

 Comments Off on UPDATE: Brackeen Partial Victory for Kids, Despite Tribal Leaders Continuing Demand that Congress Retain Plenary Control OVER EVERYONE
Apr 152021
 

Why do tribal leaders WANT Congress to have “plenary and exclusive” power over ALL tribal members? In a land where life, liberty are supposed to be guaranteed, it is so backward and insane to want “Father government” to retain complete control over your membership.

From our attorney:

The 5th Circuit’s En Banc opinion in the Brackeen case is a lengthy opinion that, in part, affirms the District Court’s ruling that portions of ICWA are unconstitutional. This is good news, but, because the En Banc Court was not able to reach a majority in their reasoning, certain swaths of the decision are not precedential. This means that the opinion, although generally positive for plaintiffs, will have limited applicability in later cases. And it may mean that a Supreme Court appeal is less likely, although it is still possible.

CAICW’s amicus argument is referenced briefly in Judge Duncan’s opinion (around page 182-183). This is typical for amicus briefs, particularly ones like CAICW’s which was highlighting a separate and tangential point for any potential Supreme Court review.

Although the opinion is complicated, it can be summarized as follows: (1) the plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims; (2) Congress had authority to enact ICWA and the “Indian Child” classification does not violate Equal Protection, but the Court could not agree as to whether ICWA’s placement preferences constituted a violation, thus the District Court’s ruling on that point is affirmed without precedential opinion; (3) portions of ICWA unconstitutionally commandeer state actors, but the Court is divided on whether other portions constitute unconstitutional commandeering, so the District Court’s ruling on those latter points is affirmed without precedential opinion; (4) ICWA’s allowing Indian tribes to establish different adoptive and foster preferences does not violate the non-delegation doctrine; and (5) although the BIA did not violated the APA, the portion of the Final Rule interpreting “good cause” violated the APA.

As for next steps, the parties have until June to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court. If they choose not to do so, the case will be returned to the District Court for further proceedings to determine the harm suffered by plaintiffs.

CAICW Newsletter, January 2021

 Comments Off on CAICW Newsletter, January 2021
Jan 122021
 
Merry Jesus Christmas native

CAICW NEWS – 2020 Summary

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus… “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still, you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness [for people to see], so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” (John 3:12-15)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but [NOTE: This is important] – whoever does not believe stands condemned already [That’s why Christ’s birth was necessary – Jesus said we had already been condemned – but He is a lifeline – an attempt to SAVE us from what has already been set to happen] – because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God (John 3:10 – 21). – She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, NIV). … God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to 6sonship (Galatians 4:4b-5, NIV). The Love, Peace, Joy and Promise of Christmas – hope for all.

CAICW.org UPDATE

• CAICW continues to support the Brackeen case (Un-constitutionality of ICWA) case with an amicus arguing an additional Constitutional argument.
• Our new treasurer, Tania Blackburn, is taking her Doctorate in Philosophy at Liberty University. Tania will be maintaining the Facebook CAICW page, Elizabeth Morris will be maintaining the MeWe page
• We Have Some Legal Funds Available for Families in danger of harm from the ICWA.

Alyce Spotted Bear/Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

 Elizabeth Morris was appointed to this congressional ‘Commission on Native Children’ 2.5 years ago. Due to COVID-19 and sundry issues prior to it, there has been no public hearings yet. They have, however, recently begun holding phone hearings with invited guests, primarily those who have an invested interest in expanding current programs.
What can be done to make certain alternative voices are heard and considered?
SEND ELIZABETH MORRIS YOUR STORY – No matter what your relationship is to an affected child. Parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, sibling, family friend, teacher, nosy neighbor – we NEED honest testimony, and as much of it as possible. This is NOT making a report to social services, etc. This is testimony to the commission – as well as data for academic reports.
 Sending testimony directly to Elizabeth Morris CAN BE made ANONYMOUS upon request. Any Commissioner, upon request of the witness, can remove all identifying information prior to submitting it to the Commission. The original testimony will not leave Commissioner Morris’ office and, according to IRP protocol, will be held in an inaccessible, off-line file.
 We NEED your support! PLEASE PRAY for this commission, for academic reports Tania and Elizabeth will be writing – as well as for CAICW and ALL children and families affected by federal Indian policy.

Website: https://caicw.org
MeWe address: https://mewe.com/p/christianallianceforindianchildwelfare
Facebook: https://Facebook.com/CAICW.org/

Morris’ Master thesis: ‘

The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Act can be found at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/ or on Pro-quest.

Doctor of Philosophy: Public Policy: Social Policy

Recently, Tania and Elizabeth have been studying destructive derivatives of the ill-conceived, injudicious, and disingenuous narrative known as “critical theory,” as well as healthier, more helpful theories largely ignored.

MERITS OF SUBSIDIARY, COVENANT, AND SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY

WHY Life, Liberty, Property, and man’s Pursuit of Happiness are
God-given rights, protected in the US Constitution

Economist Thomas Sowell writes that the federal government, under the pretense of rescuing people through a vague sense of “cosmic justice,” has been “attaching conditions to its ever-expanding largesse to states and to private institutions” (Sowell 1999). These unconstitutional conditions, indirectly imposed through threats to cut off billions in subsidies, essentially mean the “federal government has been buying up the freedom of the people with the people’s own tax money” (Sowell 1999).

Impacts of “cosmic justice”

It is understandable that men want to help others less fortunate. However, in recent years, the condition of ‘hardship’ has become misconstrued to always mean “injustice,” which gives the impression it is incumbent on society to fix the situation. This misunderstanding leads to “public policies that exacerbate rather than ameliorate problems” (Boudreaux 2000). Sowell explains:
…the quest for greater economic and social equality is promoted through a far greater inequality of political power. If rules cannot produce cosmic justice, only raw power is left as the way to produce the kinds of results being sought. In a democracy, where power must gain public acquiescence, not only must the rule of law be violated or circumvented, so must the rule of truth. However noble the vision of cosmic justice, arbitrary power and shameless lies are the only paths that ever seem to lead in its direction (Sowell Speech).

The result of these efforts is “devastating costs and social dangers.” Sowell writes that “Freedom is …the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their ‘betters, (Boudreaux 2000), and “when the state tries to do anything other than ensure traditional justice it necessarily bestows unequal and frightful powers on a select few to decide the fate of the many” (2000).

Finding elbow room for themselves: Subsidiary, covenant, and sphere sovereignty

Each man has a personal covenant with God and a mandate to perform the work given to him individually. To fulfill this purpose, God gives each man liberty through personal sphere sovereignty. Sphere sovereignty, (defined as “sovereignty in one’s own sphere”), means each individual and each social construct has their own, equal sphere of sovereignty – with God as the only, ultimate authority (Koyzis 2019, 236). The state cannot act “in a totalitarian manner, encroaching on or subjugating the other societal spheres” (2019, 236). Along with a personal sovereignty, there is a level of sovereignty within each aspect of community referred to as “subsidiarity.” The classic statement on subsidiarity teaches it is “gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry.” More than this, it is an injustice. “For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body [polite] and never destroy and absorb them (2019, 222). Tasks are to be accomplished by the lowest element of society, and only when they are truly unable is a higher authority to step in – then withdrawn once the immediate crisis is over. In this way, all parts of society retain liberty, sovereignty, and “vitality” (2019, 222).

Biblical principles

The “foundation for a good society” rests on rule of law, and rule of law rests on agreed upon morals. As men have historically been unable to agree on a consistent set of morals, God and scripture have been foundational to much of law today and affirm the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. As part of God’s covenant, Scripture extols men to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6-8). This instruction to seek justice, love kindness and walk humbly is non-negotiable (Koyzis 2019, 270). No one knows to what extent his personal work plays in the final result, but God has purpose for that work. “Every act of doing justice, whether in the political or other realms,” is a reflection, foretelling, and signpost to the coming of God’s final justice (2019, 273).

Letter to Federal Agency re: Missing and Murdered Native Americans

 Comments Off on Letter to Federal Agency re: Missing and Murdered Native Americans
Oct 092020
 
dyinginindiancountry.com/

Re: Administration for Children and Families Missing and Murdered Native
Americans Framework

Dear Assistant Secretary Johnson:

We are writing in response to your request for comments on the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Missing and Murdered Native Americans (MMNA) Framework.

The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare is a Christian ministry and family advocacy dedicated to the safety and welfare of children and families affected by federal Indian policy.

Your framework states that the crisis is a result of the insufficiency of programs meant to target the housing, lack of employment, mental and physical health care, nutrition, and education of tribal members. We believe the problem does not lie in the insufficiency of government programs or funding. There is already too much of both. We believe the problem lies in not recognizing and addressing the root of the crisis. In fact, this crisis might not benefit from intervention by the ACF, a social service agency, at all.

CAICW holds that all United States citizens are individually guaranteed a personal and distinct right to life, liberty, and property, and that no government on earth can remove those rights. We welcome a federal administration that views citizens who are eligible to be tribal members as individuals with separate and unique visions and needs, not as property of a tribal government or as a caricature of who authoritarians claim them to be.

(1) The level of crime and alcohol/drug abuse condoned in many reservation communities has direct correlation to the health and safety of women and children.

Required to address the crisis:

(1) Provisions to control crime and drugs.
a. This tends to get lost in a focus on the “background” or “underlying” public health conditions; and
b. Trying to put everything under the rubric of public health leads to treating the issues indirectly rather than directly, implying as it does that people need treatment rather than protection.

(2) Provisions to address corruption of leadership on many reservations
a. This is rarely addressed by the federal government.
b. This is vital, as leadership affects the temperament of a community. Further, there are cases in which leadership themselves are complicit to abuses – as public testimony showed at a Spirit Lake town hall meeting in February 2013 and in witness testimony to the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs in June 2014.

(3) Provision for protection of women and children:
a. Tribal governments need to partner with proven organizations (such as Operation Underground Rescue, Veterans for Child Rescue, and others) to combat sex trafficking on reservations. These organizations have toolkits already to go, as well as resources to conduct operations to rescue victims. All they need is an ok and request from a tribal entity to partner with them.

b. REQUIRE ALL EMPLOYEES in tribal governments, police, social services, schools, courts and hospitals and ANY PROGRAMMING RELATED TO CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES to pass strict background checks. Anyone with any record related to domestic or sexual abuse should not be allowed to serve in these positions. Permanently fire any employee convicted of domestic or sexual abuse of any person.

c. Set up a National hotline/safehouse mechanism so that tribal victims can report abuse without fear of retribution from their community or corrupt state entities that are partnering with tribes. This hotline should not be run by the federal, state, or tribal governments or agencies and organizations beholden to them. It should be a system that uses groups mentioned in action item #1. Funding these groups would allow them to set up regional outposts that can quickly and effectively rescue and provide victim services.

d. Provide a mechanism for victims to emancipate themselves from their tribal community if they so choose.

Lastly, government at all levels needs to stop using tax dollars to fix problems created by earlier tax dollars. Government has viewed tribal families (and all other families) as wards of the state. This view was established in the 1930’s by Felix Cohen and the Roosevelt administration and has proven nothing but disastrous. The federal government implemented programs and appropriated funds that created dependency and destroyed personal responsibility and the role of parents. Government agencies then implemented more programs and appropriated more funds for yet more bureaucracy in attempt to address the problems created by the first wave of programs and funding. Each layer of additional programs and bureaucracy has only added to the crisis – never solving anything – as evidenced by the last 90 years of increasing crises in Indian Country under the Roosevelt era policies.

The ACF’s proposed framework calls for even more government funding and bureaucracy to solve what government funding and bureaucracy created in the first place, and throws in additional grants for programs such as Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance – which has no relevance in the crisis of Missing and Murdered Native Americans.

Governments–and government bureaucrats–do not make good parents. Intact families, with fathers who understand and honor their God ordained role as guide, protector, and provider — are the surest defense against having missing and murdered Americans.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Morris
Chairwoman
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
administrator@caicw.org

About the Author:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris was also a Commissioner on the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.’ After holding several hearings in regions across the country, the Commission submitted its Final Report and Ms. Morris submitted her Minority Report to Congress in February 2024.

Ms. Morris earned her Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University. Her Master Thesis is titled: ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; an Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

CAICW.org
X.com/CAICW
Facebook.com/CAICW.org
Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

Lloyd Omdahl: No demonstrations for Native Americans

 Comments Off on Lloyd Omdahl: No demonstrations for Native Americans
Sep 082020
 
Reveals result of tribal government corruption

[CAICW Note: While Mr. Omdahl is correct concerning the extent of corruption, protest demonstrations by Native Americans will NOT make a difference. This was already done for many years and included occupations of Alcatraz, Wounded Knee and the BIA building in DC. All that these protests did was cause the death of several people and give certain powerful tribal leaders even more power through underhanded corruption involving federal officials – resulting in increased tribal corruption, oppression and abuse of tribal members. The protests did NOT improve quality of life for a large number of tribal members. In fact, things have only gotten worse.
… What needs to happen is for Americans across the board to demand a genuine end to federal sanction, encouragement and empowerment of tribal government corruption.]

Written By: Lloyd Omdahl | Jun 17th 2020

Native Americans in North Dakota have been experiencing the same discrimination as the African Americans now demonstrating across America.

Hundreds of North Dakotas went to the streets to support African Americans even though we have only a few in the state. It was a demonstration of compassion worthy of the state.

In North Dakota, we shouldn’t think about the suffering of minorities without remembering that we have hundreds of Native Americans with grievances to redress.

In their recent demonstrations, the African Americans were fortunate in that they have been able to focus on a problem that was clearly identified. When it comes to Native Americans, our exploitation and their needs are general, making them difficult to rally societal support.

American Indians in North Dakota are faced with crisis living from the cradle to the grave. Their longevity is years behind whites; their educational system is second class; they experience chronic health problems; they are ill-prepared for off-reservation jobs.

And tribal councils fester with corruption, some highly paid and drawing double salaries, first as council members and second as economic development board members, or casino board members, or any other board that can be utilized. As they are feasting at the trough, their constituents are suffering all of the ailments of a Third World country.

If State Auditor Joshua Gallion was ever allowed on the reservation to identify the corruption in tribal operations, he would never be seen again. He would find at least 50 irregularities on each of the four reservations.

Patronage is still a big problem. Doreen Yellow Bird of the Fort Berthold Reservation once mourned about the rampant nepotism on reservations: “Employing people who support them allows leaders to stay in tribal government positions. Nepotism is hobbling program directors and law enforcement officers.”

And there is a worse kind of patronage in the form of foster care payments, patronage that has ended up with the deaths of several children in the past few years, one just weeks ago.

The problem involves the Indian Child Welfare Act that requires that foster children be returned to the tribe even though white foster parents have provided them with education, medical care and love that would not be available on the reservation.

And why would the tribe exercise the option of demanding children back? Why, Cousin George or Aunt Isabell needs the monthly stipend that goes with foster children. So children get passed around as patronage.

Writing in the Washington Post, the highly respected George F. Will called it “the blood stained Indian Child Welfare Act,” citing the case of a Methodist minister in Bismarck having to give up Indian foster children on the demand of the Spirit Lake Sioux, only to have one of them killed when a grandparent threw the child down an embankment.

Reservations are a curse for Native Americans who are not a part of the ruling cliqués. They are run like Central American republics, with the largesse consumed by a few at the top, and constituents who have little to say about tribal living.

All of the white man’s treaties should have been printed on toilet paper so they could have served some useful purpose. The promises were never kept. The most relevant one today is the assurance that the federal government would provide health care. Despite the chronic ailments suffered by Indians, federal health care was underfunded from the start.

Through the years, we have had study commissions, investigations, meetings with governors and senators, but nothing much has happened. To really solve problems will require money, and there will be no money until Native Americans can deliver huge demonstrations.

In the meantime, discrimination and deprivation on reservations will continue.

READ MORE: https://www.inforum.com/opinion/6538262-Omdahl-No-demonstrations-for-Native-Americans

Lloyd Omdahl is a political scientist and former North Dakota lieutenant governor. His column appears Sundays.

To Senators Hoeven & Udall Concerning Congressional Commission on Native Children

 Comments Off on To Senators Hoeven & Udall Concerning Congressional Commission on Native Children
Jul 282020
 

As a member of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children, I am sharing with you my letter to the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs concerning the Commission on Native Children.

It is important that every Congressman, as well as the President of the United States, fully understand the points made in this letter.

I encourage you to share the letter or your own version of it with your elected officials as well.

——————————–

July 27, 2020

The Honorable John Hoeven
Chairman
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
838 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Tom Udall
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
838 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Sent via e-mail

Re: Letter concerning an extension of time for the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Ranking Member Udall,

Due to difficulties securing funding through the Department of Interior, followed by the threat of the Covid virus, the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children has not been able to maintain the necessary timeline for its work. As a member of this Commission, I am writing to you concerning S. 3948

As you know, a comprehensive study determining the effectiveness of all programs, grants, and supports available for Native children is absolutely necessary. Redundant, ineffective and detrimental programs cannot continue. Limited resources coupled with the severe need of a large number of children means attention needs to be on programs that are genuinely beneficial. After decades of government interventions, the difference between what has helped and what has not should be evident.

Of particular importance is recognition that children who have Native American heritage are diverse individuals, each with their own needs, experiences, and world view. Not only do the 500 different tribal communities each have their own diverse histories, traditions and culture, but not all the children live within tribal communities. They live within disparate environments and situations. Some live within the reservation system, some live in cities or suburbs, and some live on rural farms. Some live with financial wealth, some do not. Some live in safe and loving homes, other do not. Some decisively embrace traditional religion. Others do not as a matter of choice. The children live within all walks of life, and most do not live within Indian Country. Some reject the reservation system and do not want tribal officials making decisions for them.

It is vital this be recognized and that children not be treated as if cut from all the same cloth. Programs fail when they do not correctly address the true heart of a child, but instead make assumptions about what the child really wants and needs.

This makes wide-ranging and far-reaching research all the more important. This Commission needs time to ensure that the recommendations submitted to Congress are well informed and bring genuine understanding and respect for the individual needs of children.

I am submitting a letter of support for S. 3948. Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Morris
Commissioner
Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

.

About the Author:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris was also a Commissioner on the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.’ After holding several hearings in regions across the country, the Commission submitted its Final Report and Ms. Morris submitted her Minority Report to Congress in February 2024.

Ms. Morris earned her Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University. Her Master Thesis is titled: ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; an Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

CAICW.org
X.com/CAICW
Facebook.com/CAICW.org
Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

Senator Hoeven and Senate Committee push “historic levels of funding for Indian country in Phase III Coronavirus response”

 Comments Off on Senator Hoeven and Senate Committee push “historic levels of funding for Indian country in Phase III Coronavirus response”
Apr 022020
 
Washington DC

While all communities are in need of support during this unprecedented world crisis, when reading the numbers below, note the amount of money given to federal agencies – not to communities, and the number of redundant programs within those agencies.

Remember as well, individual tribal members will be receiving the same $1200 all eligible citizens will receive, and are able to access county and state resources as citizens.

According to a March 26, 2020 Press Release from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs;

Senator John Hoeven (R-ND), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, today released the following statement after the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the third phase of legislation to address coronavirus response and mitigation efforts across the country, including American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

“We worked hard to secure necessary resources to help Tribes combat the coronavirus outbreak,” said Hoeven. “This legislation delivers important resources for Indian Tribes to help health care providers, small businesses, schools, communities, and individuals mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in tribal communities.”

The CARES Act includes a number provisions for Indian Tribes, such as:

– $8 billion in the Tribal Stabilization Fund to provide emergency relief to tribal governments and offset costs incurred by Indian Tribes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
– Ensuring that Indian Tribes and their businesses are eligible for the $454 billion loan guarantee funds and $349 billion under the U.S Small Business Administration (SBA) Loan 7(a) Program.
– $1.032 billion for Indian Health Service (IHS) for coronavirus response efforts, including treatment and preventing the spread of COVID-19 on tribal lands.
– $100 million for USDA’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
– $453 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Safety and Law Enforcement.
– $327 million for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs).
– $305 million for Indian Housing Programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

This bill will now move to the U.S. House of Representatives for further consideration.

DETAILED SUMMARY OF TRIBAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Department of Treasury Tribal Stabilization Fund — Section 601 provides $8 billion in emergency relief funds to Indian Tribes. These funds will be available to tribal governments who certify that the funds will be used to offset expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 outbreak. In consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these funds will be disbursed by the Secretary of Treasury.
U.S. Small Business Administration Loan 7(a) Program — Section 1102 makes tribal businesses and tribal government owned businesses eligible for the $349 billion loan guarantee program. Additionally, $265 million has been secured for the education, training, and advising of small businesses in dealing with COVID-19.
U.S. Department of Treasury’s Loans and Guarantee Loans — Section 4002 makes Indian Tribes, and their businesses, eligible for the $454 billion loan guarantee fund.
U.S. Department of Education and the Bureau of Indian Education schools clarification — Section 3511 clarifies that all Bureau of Indian Education schools, including contract and grant schools, are eligible to receive certain U.S. Department of Education waivers due to COVID-19.
Special Diabetes Program for Indians — Section 3832 reauthorizes the SDPI Program to the end of November 2020.
Native Inclusion of Education and Training Relating to Geriatrics — Section 753 awards grants to support the training of health care professionals who treat elderly Native Americans. $40.7 million was authorized in the Act for these grants to eligible entities, including those who prioritize serving older adults in Indian Tribes and tribal organizations.

The legislation also provided supplemental funding to help tribal communities respond to the COVID-19, including:

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
    1. $100 million for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
    2. $50 million for Facility Upgrades
    3. $50 million for Additional Food Purchases
  • U.S. Department of the Interior
    1. $453 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs, including Public Safety & Justice, to address COVID-19 on tribal lands
    2. $69 million for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), of which no less than $20 million is for Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs)
  • U.S. Department of Education
    1. $153.8 million for BIE schools
    2. $105 million for Institutions of Higher Education, which includes Tribal Colleges and Universities funding
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    1. Of the $1.032 billion in funding, the IHS resources will be allocated for:
    1. Up to $65 million for Electronic Health Record Stabilization
    2. Not less than $450 million for Tribal shares and contracts with Urban Indian Organizations
    3. Up to $125 million may be transferred to and merged with the “Indian Health Service, Indian Health Facilities” account
    4. All remaining funds are to be used at the discretion of the Director of the Indian Health Service
  • $15 million for Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Health Surveillance and Program Support for Indian Tribes
  • $15 million for Indian Tribes to utilize the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response’s Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund
  • $1.5 billion for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants and cooperative agreements of which Indian Tribes, Tribal Organizations, and Urban Indian Organizations are eligible to apply
  • $125 million for CDC coronavirus funding directly to Indian Tribes, Tribal Organizations, and Urban Indian Organizations
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    1. $200 million for the Indian Housing Block Grant Program
    2. $100 million for Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
    3. $5 million for Office of Public and Indian Housing
  • U.S. Department of Commerce
    1. $300 million for assistance to Tribal subsistence, commercial, and charter fisheries affected by COVID-19.

The total increase in the supplemental appropriations funding is $2.692 billion, with more available through competitive grants along with state and local governments, bringing total resources to $10.314 billion for Indian Tribes.

https://www.indian.senate.gov/news/press-release/hoeven-us-senate-passes-historic-levels-funding-indian-country-phase-iii

We will NOT be Intimidated – Send your Testimony for the Commission on Native Children

 Comments Off on We will NOT be Intimidated – Send your Testimony for the Commission on Native Children
Apr 012020
 
Phoenix Arizona

I never use alcohol or drugs – not in decades anyway – and have no intention of starting. While I struggle with ADD – which can definitely make situations more adventurous if not challenging – it hasn’t stopped me from ultimately doing what I need to.

If anyone wants a fuller listing of my faults, they can find them in the book ‘Dying in Indian Country.’ There are plenty of faults in there – (https://dyinginindiancountry.com/ ).

I have a job to finish with ICWA and fully intend to do so.

In fact – following recent events and the dishonest manipulations those events exposed – I have renewed motivation. We cannot leave our families at the mercy of those bent on political agendas, greed and/or personal power.

I have had less time to work with CAICW over the last five years or so because I was in school, working on my Master of Arts: Public Policy, then began my doctorate.

I had also toned down my work over the last three years because I had been nominated to the Commission on Native Children and was advised not to rock boats for a little while.

Well…“a little while” is done. I will no longer remain ‘toned down.’

As some of you know, we have filed Amicus briefs in the Brackeen case. With the Brackeen case and others along the pipes, we might see an end to this horrid law within a couple years. Praise God.

I have also published my Master thesis – which, at 350 pages, is a wealth of documented history from colonial times as well as legislative history and case law concerning various aspects of Indian law. You might be surprised by some of the facts that came out of that research.

“The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act”
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

Further, there is the Commission on Native Children. I hope each and every one of you will SUBMIT TESTIMONY.

When you consider the testimony you will be sending to the Commission on Native Children – form it as the message you know CONGRESS needs to hear.

We need genuine talk from genuine people about the best interest of their children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, siblings, students, foster children, playmates, neighbors, “2nd Cousin’s girlfriend’s grandma’s nieces”… anyone that has anything at all to say. We need to know: What things genuinely helped the children to grow – and which things did not.

We especially need testimony from young adults that have tribal heritage – explaining what they felt helped or hurt them.

The testimony from tribal entities and their supporters, which the writers of the final report will focus on and play up, is that participation in tribal programs, tribal services, language immersion, etc, are the only way our children can be healthy and happy.

To prevent Congress from continuing to sign the lives of our children over to these tribal entities, we need Congress to accept that there is a full range of possibilities for our children – not just the politically-favored viewpoint. If the other options and experiences are not mentioned to the Commission, they won’t be included in the data as acceptable and effective avenues of healthy growth for the children.

One does not need to mention tribal programs if tribal programs haven’t been a part of that child’s experience. That is fine. One could elaborate on what the child HAS experienced as a normal part of growing up. For example – how high school sports impacted a child, or learning jazz dance, or participation in school plays, or an interest in gardening, raising sheep, playing the harp, or the child’s relationship with the church or a particular school teacher.

However, it is also important to mention experiences that were detrimental to health and growth – including whether tribal programs or services were harmful. It is very important to include those experiences if the child has had them. Congress needs to accept that this has been a reality for many, many children.

Did the above make sense? For more information, including where to send your testimony – read this post on CAICW’S blog…

https://caicw.org/2020/03/13/tell-congress-how-to-best-meet-the-needs-of-native-children/?fbclid=IwAR2WTqWCQyNB4nRsldDmjvcRV0_puANlE-9I86M4ZR10cz0M2-wu7VPJFnY

Tell Congress How to Best Meet the Needs of Native Children

 Comments Off on Tell Congress How to Best Meet the Needs of Native Children
Mar 132020
 
Little girl on trike

The Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children (also known as the congressional Commission on Native Children, or CNC) wants to hear your experience as a child with tribal heritage – OR – raising children who have tribal heritage. Too often, Commissions such as this have heard from only one segment of the population. However, this Commission – which is tasked by Congress to identify new strategies for lasting solutions and report back to them – wants to hear from ALL who have experience – no matter the relationship. Everyone matters.

– If you are an individual with tribal heritage – what were some of the most beneficial experiences you had growing up? What programs, entities, or individuals helped your growth most? Which experiences were most hurtful or destructive? Again, you can do this anonymously if you choose.

– If you are a parent, grandparent, other relative or foster/adoptive parent who is eligible for membership in a federal tribe but prefer to raise your child outside of the reservation system, please let the Commission know why. Your testimony can be anonymous and will help them to understand tribal members who choose not to be under tribal jurisdiction, as well as help them to assess whether living outside of government programs is beneficial to children.

– If you are a parent, grandparent, extended relative, or adoptive parent who is NOT eligible for membership, YOUR TESTIMONY IS JUST AS RELEVANT AND VITAL.

Has any government – federal, state, tribal or county – attempted to interfere with your

  • chosen worldview?
  • relationship with your extended family/parents/child/children, or
  • method of raising children

If so – how has this affected the well-being of child/children involved?

~

HOW TO SEND

Written testimony is to be given just as much weight as oral testimony and CAN be anonymous.

To send signed testimony identifying you and/or the child – Send your testimony directly to the Commission at: asbwsnc@gmail.com

See near the bottom of the page for how to submit testimony anonymously.

~

WHAT TO SEND

“The Commission will focus its recommendations on solutions to issues that would improve the health, safety, and well-being of Native children, including: child welfare; physical, mental, and behavioral health; educational and vocational opportunities; school district policies and practices; access to cultural and extracurricular activities; juvenile justice; early education and development; wraparound services for Native children.”

It is important to tell your child’s story. Your honest opinion about any of what is described above is important. The Commission needs to know your observations and experience – good or bad. They won’t know the full spectrum of experiences if they continually hear only from the same sources.

Also – if your child has struggles in certain areas, let the Commission know why you think that might be and what methods have been used to try to resolve it.

One federal program, the Administration of Children and Families (ACF), has a budget of about 50 billion and “awards on the average $647 Million to Native Americans through programs like Head Start… TANF, LIHEAP,…and the Administration for Native Americans, to name a few.” Have any of ACF programs benefited your child? Why or why not? Which government programs have helped? Which have hurt?

If your child is doing well physically, emotionally, academically, and/or spiritually – let the Commission know and tell them which factors you believe helped your child attain that well-being. Was there a close relationship that inspired them? A particular tribal, federal, school or church program? – OR no program at all – just stable, loving home life? If so, the Commission NEEDS to know this.

If a Commission hears only from Social Service professionals who continually say ALL Native Children suffer from (fill in the blank) and All NEED a certain social service program to get better… than that is what they will decide needs to be done. If the Commission is not able to obtain alternate data, it will rely on the data social services, organizations and agencies give it.
If you have a different story – please tell it. If the best outcome for a child is in a stable and loving home setting, independent of government programs, the Commission needs to know this.

All the below suggested topics are OPTIONAL. We are putting them here merely to generate thought concerning current federal Indian policy.

You could choose to include any other issue related to your child that you feel needs addressing, including any words or phrases commonly used by governments or organizations when referring to children of heritage that you feel diminish your child.

These are some of the words, phrases and sentences found in the legislation enacting the Commission or providing data to the Commission. What are the thoughts and inferences behind those words? Do they paint a correct or incorrect perception of your child? Are they truthful or paternalistic and condescending? Do they promote children or protect victim-hood? Do you feel ‘triggered’ by any of the words and inferences made by government agents and policies, or do they seem correct to you?

  • “The Wrongs We Are Doing Native American Children,”
  • “The protective role of Native American culture and language”
  • “Complex program requirements and limited resources stymie efforts to reduce the disparities among Native children.”
  • “Acts of Self-Determination Foster Strong Native Families and Communities”
  • “Native Language Holds Culture, Culture Holds Language, and Both Hold Wellness”
  • “Stakeholders” (when referring to a selective group that you don’t believe includes you)
  • Data on all “Native children” is required “to see how well children are cared for” and that the “rights of children and families are adhered to.”
  • ICWA “protects the best interest of the Indian Child and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.”
  • “Part of ensuring the safety and security of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children is having basic data collected that provides information on their circumstances.”
  • Under the AFCARS Rule, agencies can collect and keep “information on children who are not enrolled.”
  • They will examine the “unique challenges Native children face”
  • They will build “on the strengths and leadership of Native communities, with the goal of developing a sustainable system that delivers wrap-around services to Native children.”
  • “Resources and supports for Native children are currently inappropriate, insufficient, or limited by bureaucracy so that they are ineffective.”
  • “The vision of Native children and youth who are resilient, safe, healthy, and secure requires many types of evidence, including a wide range of evaluation data, descriptive research studies, performance measures, innovative practice models, financial and cost data, survey statistics, and analyses of program administrative data; all contributing to shared strengths-focused narratives relevant and useful to tribal leadership and stakeholders.”

OPTIONAL Adoption/Foster care Questions: [Wording is pulled from the conclusions of a 1998 pilot study report]
1. Does placing American Indian children in foster/adoptive non-Indian homes puts them at great risk for experiencing psychological trauma leading to the development of long-term emotional and psychological problems in later life?
2. Are there unique factors of Indian children being placed in non-Indian homes that create damaging effects in the later lives of the children?
3. Do American Indians have a cognitive process different from non-Indians – a cognitive difference in the way Indian children receive, process, integrate and apply new information—in short, a difference in learning style”?
a. Is the difference in learning style a cognitive difference in race, a familial difference, an issue unique to your child, or a symptom of fetal alcohol effects?
4. Are the ties between Indian children and their birth families and culture extremely strong, and the ties between Indian children and non-Indian foster/adoptee families only “foster parent-tie-to-Indian child, not Indian child-ties-to-foster parent?”
5. Do American Indian adults who were adopted into non-Indian families as children have greater problems with self-identity, self-esteem, and inter-personal relationships than do their peers from non-Indian and Indian homes?
6. Do Indian adoptees, regardless of age at placement, list identity with their family and their tribe as their first priority, and the sorrow of not knowing their culture, language, heritage and family as a life-long, often emotionally debilitating anguish?

Encourage as many people as possible to send in their testimony. There has been a long history of misinformation concerning children who have heritage, and it will take the stories of quite a few people to begin to correct the mind-view of government agencies.

~

TO PROVIDE ANONYMOUS TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION:

For the Commission to receive anonymous testimony, signed testimony must be given to a trusted CNC Commissioner who will then verify it, remove identifying data, and deliver as anonymous to the full Commission. Elizabeth Morris, chair of CAICW, is a CNC Commissioner.
Elizabeth will keep your signed copy in a protected file and deliver the anonymous copy to the Commission.

You can submit your testimony to Elizabeth Morris at:
administrator@caicw.org

or mail through USPO to:
PO Box 460, Hillsboro, ND 58045

Other Commissioners of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native
Children
who can receive signed testimony and provide an anonymous copy to the Commission are:

Gloria O’Neill (Chair)
President/CEO, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc.
Alaska

Tami DeCoteau, Ph.D. (Co-Chair)
DeCoteau Trauma-Informed Care & Practice, PLLC
North Dakota

Carlyle Begay
Former State Senator
Arizona

Dolores Subia BigFoot, Ph.D.
Director, Indian Country Child Trauma Center
Oklahoma

Jesse Delmar
Director, Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety
Arizona

Anita Fineday
Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare Program, Casey Family Programs
Minnesota

Don Atqaqsaq Gray
Board Member, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation
Alaska

Leander R. McDonald, Ph. D.
President, United Tribes Technical College
North Dakota

Elizabeth (Lisa) Morris
Administrator, Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
North Dakota

Melody Staebner
Fargo/West Fargo Indian Education Coordinator
North Dakota

Heartbeat at 22 days: Students for Life will show colleges the truth about early abortions

 Comments Off on Heartbeat at 22 days: Students for Life will show colleges the truth about early abortions
Feb 252020
 

Lifesite News – Tue Feb 18, 2020 – 12:07 pm EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Students for Life of America announced today their latest campaign, which will educate college students about babies killed by abortion early in pregnancy.

Every semester, Students for Life of America (SFLA) does a campus “tour” display – an interactive, educational banner setup about a specific life-related topic, depending on the current national conversation. 

This semester, SFLA created a new display – the Heart to Heart Tour – launching this week in Kansas. Taking the pro-life conversation to students outside the beltway, SFLA will engage in conversations about human development and the impact of abortion on infants in the womb. These conversations will be added to SFLA’s goal of having pro-life conversations with students this year, addressing the human rights issue of our day with the generation targeted by the abortion industry. No organization has more face-to-face pro-life conversations than Students for Life of America. 

The “Heart to Heart” tour takes on one of the most controversial of the abortion issues today – the impact of abortion early in pregnancy. Ninety-one percent of abortions happen in the first trimester, and the largest demographic getting abortions is, so SFLA says acknowledging the humanity of first trimester babies is vital for any meaningful discussion of how abortion impacts real people. 

Abortions by pill (chemical abortions), usually taking place earlier in pregnancy, account for almost 40 percent of all lives ended in the womb. 

“Right now, legislators are preparing to debate protections for babies born during botched abortions or abortions on viable infants in the womb who can experience great pain. Both of these are important and represent the bare minimum of legal protections we can all agree on,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “But we must talk with this generation about the fact that abortion stops a beating heart even early in pregnancy. Where there is a heartbeat, there is life. This fact can lead us to common ground in addressing the needs and rights of living human beings in the womb.” 

READ MORE – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/heartbeat-at-22-days-students-for-life-will-show-colleges-the-truth-about-early-abortions

Lawmakers Pressure U.S. Indian Health Service to Release Sex Abuse Report

 Comments Off on Lawmakers Pressure U.S. Indian Health Service to Release Sex Abuse Report
Feb 252020
 
Stanley Patrick Weber

By Dan Frosch and Christopher Weaver
Updated Feb. 24, 2020 8:03 pm ET

Lawmakers who oversee the U.S. Indian Health Service are demanding the health care agency release a report on its mishandling of a pedophile doctor that it wants to keep confidential, saying the agency must be held accountable.

On Monday, Sen. Tom Udall, (D., N.M.), vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, said in a statement that the IHS ran the risk of an “appearance of a desire to avoid accountability” if it didn’t disclose “as much of the report as is possible, as soon as possible.” The report focused on the IHS’s failure to protect children during the nearly 30-year-career of staff pediatrician, Stanley Patrick Weber, who was later convicted of sexually abusing Native American boys.

Also on Monday, Sen. Steve Daines (R., Mont.), in a letter to Alex Azar, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the IHS, wrote: “I am concerned over the lack of transparency with this report, and I strongly urge you to make this report public.”

The IHS commissioned the independent investigation last May, months after The Wall Street Journal and the PBS series Frontline jointly reported that IHS employees ignored warnings about Weber’s abuse of Native American boys for years and shuffled him from one reservation to another despite suspicions.

Last week, the agency said it wouldn’t release the report prepared by contractor Integritas Creative Solutions LLC, because it considered its findings confidential under a 2010 law. That stance prompted anger from victims’ families, former employees and tribal officials.

Mr. Udall said that IHS, which provides health care to about 2.6 million Native Americans, needed to provide a detailed justification to Congress of any legal barriers it was using to keep the report confidential.

Mr. Daines said the agency could release the report but make “appropriate redactions” to protect the privacy of patients and Weber’s victims.

The IHS said it is committed to transparency and is following the law in keeping the report confidential. “Staff are encouraged to participate in these reviews and to be as transparent as possible with the understanding that the goal is to improve the system, not to take punitive action,” the agency said.

The IHS also said it would release a report to Congressional committees overseeing the agency with certain redactions “as soon as possible.”

Other lawmakers joined Messrs. Udall and Daines in urging more transparency from the IHS after its contractor completed the report last month.

“Montanans, and all Americans, expect accountability from their government, perhaps no more so than when a government agency has deeply failed the people it is intended to serve,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.), in a statement.

READ MORE – https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-pressure-u-s-indian-health-service-to-release-sex-abuse-report-11582586359?mod=hp_lista_pos3

How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations

 Comments Off on How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations
Feb 222020
 
Washington praying

02-16-2020 – Paul Strand, CBN News

PHILADELPHIA – As we celebrate Presidents Day, it’s important to remember the first five commanders-in-chief were also all Founding Fathers of the nation. What you may not know is how crucial The Founders’ faith was in America’s beginning. And much of that beginning took place in Philadelphia.

In locations all around colonial Philadelphia, Founders who knew the God of Liberty fought to form a nation of liberty.

Take a Do-it-Yourself Tour

The Providence Forum has organized a self-guided Faith and Freedom Tour to show you how Christianity and the intense desire for liberty in these locations birthed this freest of free nations.

“Why Philadelphia? Because this was the big city. It was much bigger than the little farm town of New York,” Providence Forum founder Peter Lillback told CBN News. “Philadelphia was also centrally located. It was a big city right in the middle.”

Touring around the sights, Lillback described how Bible beliefs backed each step the Founding Fathers took. Standing near a statue of George Washington, Lillback stated the first president personified this.

‘Follow Jesus Christ to Succeed’

“Washington said we need to follow Christ or we’re never going to succeed as a nation. That’s not a minister. That’s not a right-wing conservative fundamentalist. That’s the father of our country!” Lillback exclaimed.

He offered that it’s significant and apropos that Washington’s statue is located right outside Independence Hall since that’s where the Founders declared the colonies’ freedom and formed the fledgling country’s constitution.

Washington led the army that fought for that freedom, then presided over the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and finally led the nation as its first chief executive. But he was always guided by his faith that he held so dear.

How to be a Happy Nation

Lillback explained of Washington, “He’s the one who said, ‘Unless we imitate the Divine Author of our blessed religion in terms of His charity, humility, and specific temperament of mind, we’ll never be a happy nation.'”

In a world used to rule by monarchs, he almost singlehandedly broke Americans out of the habit of being subjects.

“When he was called on to become king, he refused. Because he said, ‘We’re going to let the people decide,'” Lillback shared.

Followers of Christ the Carpenter Met in Carpenters Hall

But many years before that, leaders from the various colonies gathered for the first time and in Philadelphia in 1774 to figure out how to remove the oppressive grip Britain had wrapped around the colonies’ collective neck.

These colonial leaders were overwhelmingly of the Christian faith, following Jesus Christ, a carpenter. And interestingly enough, where they first met was called Carpenters’ Hall.

They longed to unite against Britain but were divided by deep denominational differences and even regional customs. Like when Massachusetts’ John Adams first encountered Washington, the Virginian.

Some Would Shake Hands, Some Would Bow

“They’re all gathered together. They’ve never been in the same room, they’re meeting each other for the first time. John Adams meets this big tall Virginian, George Washington. And they don’t even know how to shake hands. John Adams comes up to shake his hand and George Washington steps back. Because Virginians don’t shake hands. They give a bow,” Lillback explained.

These men gathering in Carpenters’ Hall were taking the actions that would someday give birth to America. Did it begin in rebellion? In bloodshed? It actually began in that hall with prayer.

Standing in front of Carpenters’ Hall, Lillback stated, “This is where the first prayer for the country happens. But not without a debate. They debated the question could they even pray? Not because they didn’t believe in prayer, but because all the different denominations believed that the others were wrong, and they couldn’t fellowship with them,” Lillback related.

The Spark Plug of the American Revolution said ‘I’m no Bigot’

That’s when one of the fieriest radicals against the British stepped into the breach and bridged the gap.

“This is the great accomplishment of Samuel Adams, called the spark plug of the American Revolution, who said, ‘I’m no bigot. I can pray with any man who loves his God and loves his country’,” Lillback said.

Adams called on this First Continental Congress to invite over local Anglican minister Jacob Duche to come and lead them in prayer. Adams was a Congregationalist. Not all that many years before, his people waged war against England’s Anglicans and even beheaded the British king, head of the Anglican church.

They Prayed in Jesus’ Name

But like Samuel Adams, Jacob Duche rose to the occasion, and soon arrived in Carpenters Hall.

“Leads in prayer and he does it in the name of Jesus Christ,” Lillback shared. “So we can honestly say the United States was begun with a prayer meeting.”

He went on, “I think it’s a beautiful thing to realize that American colonialists found a way to come together, and they did it in the Gospel name of Christ, crossing denominational boundaries.”

What these men accomplished, Lillback characterized as, “The spiritual and political first step of the First Continental Congress of the United States.”

And Lillback said of Adams reaching out across the denominational aisle, “It was at that moment that Sam Adams created the American ecumenical spirit, where, in the public square, we can walk over our denominational boundaries.”

Jefferson Wanted Liberty for the Slaves, Too

As the Revolutionary War began, these rebel leaders soon moved into what would become known as Independence Hall. From there, they sent Thomas Jefferson off to come up with the Declaration of Independence. Working nearby, he put together those famed words about life and liberty but also wrote a whole section against slavery.

For those who believe America was just a bunch of uncaring, hard-hearted plantation owners lording it over slaves they felt they had every right to own, the picture was much more complex.

Lillback said of the Declaration’s author, “Jefferson, although a slave owner, realized that they were making the world over again. He said something unique is happening here. And he said, ‘We need to end slavery.'”

Aided by the likes of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson finished and submitted the Declaration to his fellow delegates.

88 Changes to the Declaration of Independence

“It went to the Congress. And we’re told that while it was being debated, Jefferson was fuming in the corner. Because there were some 88 changes that were made to his document,” Lillback said, adding that one of those changes was taking out Jefferson’s idea to wipe out slavery.

But others continued the battle. Opponents of slavery pointed out the scripture from Leviticus engraved in the nearby Liberty Bell.

Lillback stated they’d remark, “Doesn’t that old bell say, ‘Proclaim liberty throughout the land to ALL inhabitants thereof?’ And this became the great icon of the abolitionists’ assault against slavery. And they’re the ones who named it the Liberty Bell.”

Accepting All Men are Sinners, All are Depraved

Meanwhile, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall, the Founders accepted the Bible’s saying all men are sinners and in their depravity can’t be trusted.

Lillback recalled, “There’s an amazing story that happens in James Madison’s record of the Constitutional Convention. They’re debating how they should distribute votes. And one of the large states says…

READ MORE – https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/february/how-founding-fathers-who-loved-the-god-of-liberty-and-their-freedom-built-the-freest-of-free-nations

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIVE CHILDREN HOLDS FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING

 Comments Off on NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIVE CHILDREN HOLDS FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING
Dec 292019
 
Commission on Native Children

The Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children will conduct a comprehensive study of supports for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 27, 2019
CONTACT: Carlyle Begay, asbwsnc@gmail.com

[Washington, D.C., November 2019] – The Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children, established by Congress, held its first official meeting from October 30-November 1, 2019. The bipartisan Commission is the vision of former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who provided opening remarks along with Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Comprised of 11 individuals specializing in juvenile justice, social service programs, Indian education, and mental and physical health, the Commission will conduct a comprehensive study of the programs, grants, and supports available for Native children at government agencies and in Native communities. They will then have three years to issue a report containing recommendations to address the challenges currently facing Native children, with the goal of developing a sustainable system that delivers wraparound services to Native children.

Native children (including American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children) suffer from Commission on Native Children, DC, DOIhealth and well-being challenges at a much higher rate than their non-Native peers, often experiencing trauma that impacts their ability to learn, thrive, and become resilient adults. Resources and supports for Native children are currently inappropriate, insufficient, or limited by bureaucracy so that they are ineffective. The Commission has a unique and historic opportunity to fundamentally change the trajectory of Native children for the better. In her opening remarks, Senator Murkowski said to the Commissioners, “The Commission can address education issues and childhood trauma in a more holistic way…Sometimes it doesn’t take a lot of money to give a child support, love, and care.” Former Senator Heitkamp added, “I want the Commission to give us hope that things can change and that we can do better. You are the ‘Hope Commission’…Collect and rely on data and research, and lead with your heart; it will take you where you need to go.”

The Commissioners are excited to take on this charge. Gloria O’Neill, Chair of the Commission and President/CEO of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council in Anchorage, Alaska, stated, “We are looking forward to moving the needle on positive outcomes for Native children. We have a great opportunity as there is great alignment in Congress and our partners in the federal government to get things done.”

Over the next couple of years, the Commission will be holding hearings in and reviewing documentation from tribal communities throughout the country to hear from Native children, their families, tribal leaders, and community members. The Commission will also hear from respected researchers and experts as they consider their recommendations. The first public hearing of the Commission will be held in Arizona in March 2020.

The Commissioners of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children are:

Gloria O’Neill (Chair)
President/CEO, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc.
Alaska

Tami DeCoteau, Ph.D. (Co-Chair)
DeCoteau Trauma-Informed Care & Practice, PLLC
North Dakota

Carlyle Begay
Former State Senator
Arizona

Dolores Subia BigFoot, Ph.D.
Director, Indian Country Child Trauma Center
Oklahoma

Jesse Delmar
Director, Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety
Arizona

Anita Fineday
Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare Program, Casey Family Programs
Minnesota

Don Atqaqsaq Gray
Board Member, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation
Alaska

Leander R. McDonald, Ph. D.
President, United Tribes Technical College
North Dakota

Elizabeth (Lisa) Morris
Administrator, Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
North Dakota

Melody Staebner
Fargo/West Fargo Indian Education Coordinator
North Dakota
###

Merry Christmas

 Comments Off on Merry Christmas
Dec 262019
 
Merry Jesus Christmas native

CAICW Chairwoman Elizabeth Morris earned a Master of Arts degree in public policy this last summer as a ‘Graduate with Distinction.’ She is now working on her Doctor of Philosophy: Public Policy: Social Policy.

Morris’ master thesis, ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act’ examines documented interactions between North American tribal communities and alternate governments from colonial times on, and the legal history, constitutionality, and social impact of current federal Indian policy. It is just under 350 pages long and can be accessed at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/ or on Pro-quest.

The Congressional ‘Commission on Native Children’

In May of 2018, Morris was appointed by Speaker Paul Ryan to the “Alyce Spotted Bear/Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children” (AKA the ‘Commission on Native Children’). The Commission finally had its first working meeting at the end of October this year…
• Representatives from the Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Interior, Dept of Health and Human Services, and Dept. of Education – and their various agencies, including the ACF, BIA, BIE, OJS and more – met with the Commissioners at the DOI in Washington. They each presented descriptions of their varied tribal programs and budgets in the millions.
• Four ‘detailees’ have been assigned to the Commission; one each from the DOJ, DOI, DHHS, and DOEd. Through these detailees, the Commissioners will get the agency data necessary to make decisions about program effectiveness.
• The commission will be holding hearings around the country. For the year 2020, the hearings are scheduled for Phoenix, Alaska, and Hawaii. (Although Hawaiians are not members of a federally recognized tribe and therefore not wards of the federal government.) There will be hearings in additional areas in 2021.

PLEASE PRAY for this commission – and keep watching the CAICW Facebook page for updates on hearings.

CAICW.org UPDATE


• CAICW filed a motion and an en Banc amicus in the Brackeen (Un-constitutionality of ICWA) case in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in October. We are making an additional Constitutional argument.
• We don’t post the stories of families who contact us on the CAICW Facebook page anymore because people have gotten into trouble for contacting us. But these families do still need prayer. There are several families to pray for right now – but there is one, in particular. A one-year-old boy is currently being transitioned into his birth mother’s home. Despite drug use, DWI’s, and jail time just last week, unsupervised overnight visits are taking place. The little boy screams and tries to get away from the birth parents when they come for him.
• CAICW has avoided fundraising for about six years. This isn’t because funds aren’t necessary, but because we no longer want to waste time or energy worrying about it. Living and working as frugally as possible is preferable. This is why there is no office or employees. Home offices work fine, and in 2014, living frugally meant camping in the DC area for six weeks, living on about 25 dollars a day – including subway fare. We choose and prefer to trust God and remain focused on the children. While we gratefully accept unsolicited donations, we don’t want money to be a primary focus. There is no way we can come close to matching the finances of our opponents anyway. What will win this battle is God – in prayer, partnerships, and perseverance.

Nevertheless, being small – and busy with the tasks we all know need to be done – we aren’t able to communicate as often as we would like. Thank you for your patience and prayers. Please keep returning to this site as well as Facebook for updates as we are able.

Thank you so much for your encouragement and support. Have a Blessed Christmas and New Year.

The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act

 Comments Off on The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act
Oct 212019
 
The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act - https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

By Elizabeth S. Morris

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Helms School of Government in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in Public Policy

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

‘Although the ICWA has some statutory safeguards to prevent misuse, numerous families continue to be hurt by the law.’

Preface

My husband and I began our lives together in a symbiotic alcoholic-enabler relationship in the late 70’s. With our family on the edge of self-destruction in 1987, my husband, an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, born and raised on the Leech Lake reservation, had a transformational experience which changed his worldview and led him to take our family in a new direction. 

Having watched many of his relatives suffer within the reservation system, he began to see reservation violence and crime as an outcome of current federal Indian policy more than it was about past policy. This led us to forming an advocacy in the late 90’s for families hurt by federal Indian policy.  We did our best to share hope and life, as inadequate as we were, by assisting extended family in our home, neighbors in our community, and strangers across the nation. We never did it for money; there was never any money. Everything we did came from passion for the lives of our children, nieces and nephews, and extended communities.

Unfortunately, reservation crime, corruption, drug abuse and violence have continued to increase over the years. My husband has since passed away and I am a widow, continuing the work we had begun in 1996.

This thesis compiles some of the documented history, philosophy, and consequences of federal Indian policy. It also includes a preliminary quantitative causal comparative survey with 1351 participants – 551 of whom identify tribal heritage – and explores the relationship between differences.

We serve a powerful God with whom all things are possible.  Our job is to serve in the capacity He has given us, even if we do not understand why, and then enjoy watching what He does next. 

Abstract

This paper will examine the philosophical underpinnings of current federal Indian policy and its physical, emotional, and economic consequences on individuals and communities.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission found in 1990 that “[T]he Government of the United States has failed to provide civil rights protection for Native Americans living on reservations” (W. B. Allen 1990, 2). As Regan (2014) observes, individuals have been denied full title to their property – and thus use of the property as leverage to improve their economic condition (Regan 2014). Tribal executive and judicial branches have been accused of illegal search and seizures, denial of right to counsel or jury, ex parte hearings and violations of due process and equal protection (W. B. Allen 1990, 3). Violence, criminal activity, child abuse and trafficking are rampant on many reservations (DOJ 2018). Largely because of crime and corruption, many have left the reservation system. The last two U.S. censuses’ report 75% of tribal members do not live in Indian Country (US Census Bureau 2010).

Research suggests current federal Indian policy and the reservation system are built on philosophies destructive to the physical, emotional and economic health of individual tribal members. This paper contends that allowing property rights for individual tribal members, enforcing rule of law within reservation systems, supporting law enforcement, and upholding full constitutional rights and protections of all citizens would secure the lives, liberties and properties of affected individuals and families.

Introduction

For almost 200 years the U.S. federal government has claimed wardship over members of federally recognized Indian tribes.  Yet, despite the nineteenth century U.S. federal court rulings that propagated this view, disagreement continues as to whether tribes located within the United States are sovereign, whether Congress has plenary power over them, and whether individual tribal members have U.S. Constitutional rights: 

  • Some say the nineteenth century U.S. Supreme Court cases known as the ‘Marshall Trilogy’ contradict tribal sovereignty.  Others say they uphold it.
  • Some say treaties promise a permanent trust relationship. Others point out that most treaties have clearly specified final payments of federal funds and benefits and were written and signed with clear intent for gradual assimilation.
  • Some say the Constitution never gave Congress anything more than the power to regulate trade with tribes. Others claim the Constitution not only gave Congress total and exclusive plenary power to decide every aspect of life in Indian Country – but by unstated extension, gave the executive branch this power as well.
  • Some argue that the Constitution never had authority over tribes or tribal members. Others cite the Constitution when seeking judicial redress. 
  • Some tribal officials argue that international law should not have been forced upon non-European cultures that had no say in it. Others point to natural law and international law – the grounds for treaties between nations – as basis for uninterrupted tribal sovereignty.

Inherent, retained tribal sovereignty was reality for tribal governments prior to the formation of the United States and in the immediate years following its birth, but is not reflected in case law from the 1800s and much of the 1900s. By the time of Andrew Jackson, the United States had taken a position of control. Further, over the last two centuries, the vast majority of tribal leaders accepted large payments for land, accepted federal trust benefits, and submitted to federal government’s de facto power over them.   

Throughout history and every heritage, various men have coveted power over others.  Today, tribal governments, while accepting and playing into Congress’ claim of plenary power, have themselves, also, claimed exclusive jurisdiction and authority over unwilling citizens. Tribal governments regularly lobby and petition both Congress and the White House to codify tribal jurisdiction over the lives, liberty and property of everyone within reservation boundaries as well as some outside reservation boundaries.  While claiming exclusive jurisdiction, tribal governments have requested and given blessing for the federal government to manage children of tribal heritage – asking Congress to write the Indian Child Welfare Act and the executive branch to write federal rules governing the placement of every enrollable child in need of care. Some tribal governments and supportive entities have gone further – asking even governors and state legislators to expand on and strengthen control over children with heritage.

Often cited as justification for the ICWA is a 1998 pilot study by Carol Locust, a training director at the Native American Research and Training Center at the University of Arizona College of Medicine.  Locust’s study is said to have shown that “every Indian child placed in a non-Indian home for either foster care or adoption is placed at great risk of long-term psychological damage as an adult” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998).  Referring to the condition as the “Split-feather Syndrome,” Locust claims to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998).  The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “Split-feather syndrome” during Locust’s limited study (DHS 2005).

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” Only twenty adoptees with tribal heritage – total – were interviewed. All were removed from their biological families and placed with non-native families. There were no control groups to address other variables. According to Cleaveland:

Locust asserts that out-of-culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects 

(Cleaveland 2015).

Cleaveland concluded, “Sadly, because many judges and attorneys, and even some caseworkers and other professionals, are not familiar with the research, results that may be very wrong are leading to the wrong outcomes for children” (Cleaveland 2015).  While supporters of ICWA cite “Split-feather Syndrome” as proof the ICWA is in the best interest of children, many children have been hurt by application of the law. 

Questions that need more extensive study include whether children who were adopted into non-Indian families as children show greater problems with self-identity, self-esteem, and inter-personal relationships than do their peers.  Are the ties between children who have tribal heritage and their birth families and culture stronger than that of their peers, no matter the age at adoption?  Other considerations include whether all tribal members support federal policies that mandate their cases be heard only in tribal courts and whether a percentage of persons of tribal heritage believe federal Indian policy infringes on their life, liberty and property.

 The central concern of this paper is how current federal Indian policy has affected the lives, liberty and property of those who have tribal heritage – most specifically the Indian Child Welfare Act.  Through research of the historical foundations of federal Indian policy and a nation-wide comparative survey of family dynamics, this paper will attempt to answer these and other questions.

READ FULL TEXT – https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

Citation

Morris, Elizabeth S. The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Master Thesis, Helms School of Government, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Digital Commons, 2019, 337.  

—————————-

References

Aziz G. Sayigh, Boris V. Babson, A.S. Erickson, Charles S. Dameron, Adam I.W. Schwartzman, Nicholas P. Desatnick. “The Storied History of Dartmouth.” The Dartmouth Review, 10 2006.

25 U.S Code. “15 § 1302.” 1968.

Ablavsky, Gregory. “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1012, 1017.

Abourezk, James G. THE OCCUPATION OF WOUNDED KNEE, 1973 – American Indian Movement. House of Representatives, Wounded Knee: U.S. Government, 1972.

ACF. Tribal Child Counts. Washington DC: Child Care Bureau, Office of Family Assistance, 2007.

Adoption of Baby Boy L. No. 53,592 (Kansas Supreme Court, April 3, 1982).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. No. 12–399 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013).

Ahrens, Kym R., Michelle M. Garrison, and Mark E. Courtney. “Health Outcomes in Young Adults From Foster Care and Economically Diverse Backgrounds.” American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014: 10.

AIPRC. American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report, Vol. I. report to provide foundation for understanding of federal Indian policy, law, and history, American Indian Policy Review Commission,, Congress, Washington DC: GPO; Eric.Ed.gov, 1977, 593.

Allen, William B. Commissioner. The Indian Civil Rights Act: United States Commission on Civil Rights Statement. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, U.S. Congress, Washington DC: USCCR, 1990, 16.

Allen, William B. “Email Correspondence.” June 8, 2018.

—. “ICWA Teach-in, Keynote.” Washington DC: CAICW, 10 2010.

Allen, William. Review of Federal Indian Policy. Havre d’ Grace, MD: Unpublished, 2010, 25.

Allison Randall, Chief of Staff. “Baaken violence.” DOJ/Office on Violence Against Women. washington DC: DOJ, 9 13, 2013.

Ambrose, of the St John Indians. “Speech at a Conference Held at Watertown, in the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay July 12, 1776.” Edited by Peter Force. American Archives. Ser.5 v.1 ([1776] 1837–53): 839.

Arkes, Hadley. “The Natural Law Challenge.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc) 36, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 961-975.

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence: Ending Violence so Children can Thrive. Final Full Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Deptartment of Justice, Washington DC: Dept. of Justice, 2014, 257.

Avalon Project. “Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans.” Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp (accessed June 22, 2016).

Banner, Stuart. How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. 2nd. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2007.

Bastiat, Fredrick. The Law. New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1998.

Bellamy, Jennifer L., Geetha Gopalan, and Dorian E. Traube. “A National Study of the Impact of Outpatient Mental Health Services for Children in Long Term Foster Care.” Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry (University of Chicago) 15, no. 4 (2010): 467-79.

Bender, Albert. “South Dakota Commits Shocking Genocide Against Native Americans by Abducting Their Children.” ICWA INFO. Edited by Native American Rights Foundation. Native American Rights Foundation. February 20, 2015. http://icwa.narf.org/news/1747 (accessed June 22, 2016).

Benedict, Jeff. Without Reservation. New York: Harper, 2000.

Bernholz, Charles D., Laura K. Weakly, Brian L. Pytlik Zillig, and Karin Dalziel. “As long as grass shall grow and water run: The treaties formed by the Confederate States of America and the tribes in Indian Territory, 1861.” Treaties Portal. Love Memorial Library. n.d. http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/.

BIA. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2019. https://www.bia.gov/bia (accessed 4 16, 2019).

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings.” Federal Register, June 14, 2016: 369.

—. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. 9 2, 2016. http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ (accessed Sept 3, 2016).

—. “ICWA Guidelines teleconference.” NWX-DEPT OF INTERIOR-NBC (US). Washington DC: Department of Interior, 2015. 1-114.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act.” US Deptartment of the Interior: Indian Affairs. June 8, 2016. http://www.indianaffairs.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/IndianChildWelfareAct/index.htm (accessed June 8, 2016).

BIA. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Notice, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, DC: Federal Government, 2003, 68180 -68184 (5 pages).

Bickel, Alexander M. “Citizenship in the American Constitution.” Faculty Scholarship Series, 1973.

Bird, Allyson. Broken Home: The Save Veronica story. News Article, Charleston: Charleston City Paper, 2012.

Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary Free. 2. The Law Dictionary, 2018.

Blackstone, William. Blackstone’s Commentaries. Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small, 1803.

Bolick, Clint. “Native American Children: Separate But Equal?” Hoover Institution. Oct 27, 2015. http://www.hoover.org/research/native-american-children-separate-equal (accessed July 27, 2016).

Bordewich, Fergus M. Killing the White Man’s Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1996.

Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of the Several States of the American Union. 6. J.B. Lippincott & Company, 1856.

Bowdoin, James. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online – National Archives. Edited by Philander D. Chase. University Press of Virginia. July 30, 1776. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378 (accessed 9 24, 2018).

Brackeen v Zinke. 4:17-cv-00868-O (US District Court, Northern District Of Texas, Fort Worth Division, 10 4, 2018).

Braund, Kathryn. “Summer 1814: The Treaty of Ft. Jackson ends the Creek War.” National Park Service. 8 15, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/articles/treaty-of-fort-jackson.htm (accessed 3 11, 2019).

Brief for Amicus Curiae of Thomas Lee Morris, Elizabeth S. Morris and Roland J. Morris, Supporting Respondent. 03-107 (United States v. Billy Jo Lara, On Writ of Certiorari, December 15, 2003).

Brief of Amicus Curiae Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmation (Brackeen v. Zinke, 2018). 4:17-CV-00868 (U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, February 2019).

Brief of Amicus Curiae Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation in Support of the Respondent. 16-1498 (Supreme Court of the United States, Oct 30, 2018).

Brown, Thomas. “Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill’s Genocide Rhetoric.” Plagiary: Cross‐Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2006: 100-129.

CAICW. “Administrator.” Letters from Families. Ronan: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 9, 2004.

—. “Administrator.” Growing Crime, Changing Dynamics. Fargo: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 27, 2014.

—. “Testimony from the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation.” CAICW.org. June 24, 2014.

TESTIMONY: CHILD PROTECTION AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ON THE SPIRIT LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION:
(accessed May 19, 2016).

CAICW. The New ICWA Rules. Public Policy, Fargo: CAICW, 2016.

Cano, Regina Garcia. 2 Malnourished Girls Found on South Dakota Reservation. News, Seattle: Seattle Times, 2016.

CDC. “The Adverse Childhood Experience Study (ACE).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Dept of Health and Human Services. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/index.html (accessed 3 2018).

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2014.

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2011.

Cherokee Nation. Tribal Citizenship. 2019. https://www.cherokee.org/Services/Tribal-Citizenship (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Cherokee v. Georgia. 30 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 12 31, 1831).

Chief Joseph, of the Nez Perce. “The Surrender of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, Montana Territory.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). October 5, 1877. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4856/the-surrender-of-chief-joseph-of-the-nez-perce-montana-territory-october-5-1877-chief-josephs-own-story/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Chief Seattle. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches. 1 12, 1854.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Determining the Best Interest of the Child.” Child Welfare Information Gateway. HHS/ ACYF/ACF Children’s Bureau. 2016. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/best_interest.pdf (accessed 3 11, 2017).

Churchill, Ward, interview by Joshua Frank. Accusations and Smear: An Interview with Professor Ward Churchill, (Part 1 of 5) (9 19, 2005).

Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.

Cohen, Felix S. “Colonialism: A Realistic Approach.” Ethics (The University of Chicago Press) 55, no. 3 (4 1945): 167-181.

—. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1942. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, [1942] 1971.

Cohen, Felix S. “Original Indian Title.” Edited by Lucy Kramer Cohen. Minn. L. Rev. (Yale U. Press) 32 (1947): 28.

Congress. “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America.” Journal of the Proceedings of the American Continental Congress, May 1775: 120.

Cross, Suzanne L, Angelique G Day, and Lisa G Byers. “American Indian Grand Families: A Qualitative Study Conducted with Grandmothers and Grandfathers Who Provide Sole Care for Their Grandchildren.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 25, no. 4 (12 2010): 371–383.

CTWS. “Declaration of Sovereignty.” Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Tribe of Oregon. 2016.

Declaration of Sovereignty
(accessed 4 8, 2019).

Curry, Brett W. “Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism, by Dalia Tsuk Mitchell.” Law and Politics Book Review, Sept 2007: 764-767.

Dawes Commission. Congressional Commission, Washington DC: Congress, 1895.

De Venter, M., K. Demyttenaere, and R. Bruffaerts. “The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and mental health in adulthood. A systematic literature review].” Tijdschr Psychiatry 55, no. 4 (2013): 259-68.

DHHS/IHS. Trends in Indian Health. Statistics, Washington DC: Indian Health Service, 1997.

DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.

DOI. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1958.

DOI/BIA. “Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings.” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 /. 2 25, 2015. http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-029447.pdf (accessed March 15, 2015).

DOI-BIA. Indian Population and Labor Force Report. Statistics, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, Washigton DC: Department of Interior, 2003.

DOJ. “Environment and Natural Resources Division.” The United States Department of Justice. 5 24, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/timeline-event/congress-passes-first-indian-trade-and-intercourse-act (accessed 2 10, 2018).

—. “Indian Country Justice Statistics.” Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 4 30, 2018. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=200000 (accessed 8 19, 2018).

—. “Lead up to the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946.” United States Deptartment of Justice. 5 12, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/lead-indian-claims-commission-act-1946 (accessed 6 1, 2019).

—. “Transcript from the First Hearing of the Advisory Committee of the Attorney General’s Task Force.” American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence. Bismarck: Department of Justice, 2013. 46.

Dudley, Richard G. Jr. MD. “Childhood Trauma and Its Effects: Implications for Police.” Edited by Harvard Kennedy School. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin ( U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice), 2015: 1-22.

Duro v. Reina. 495 U.S. 676 (U.S., 1990).

Eaglewoman, Angelique, and G. William Rice. “American Indian Children and U.S. Indian Policy.” Tribal Law Journal 16 (2016): 1-29.

Enlow, Michelle Bosquet, Emily Blood, and Byron Egeland. “Sociodemographic risk, developmental competence, and PTSD symptoms in young children exposed to interpersonal trauma in early life.” Journal of Traumatic Stress (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies), 2013: 686-694.

Executive Office of the President. Native Youth Report. Policy Brief, Washington DC: The White House, 2014.

FBI. “Indian Country Crime.” FBI.gov. 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/indian-country-crime (accessed July 27, 2016).

Feldon, Gai. Constitutional Government and Free Enterprise. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Pub Co, 2014.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine (National Institutes of Health) 14, no. 4 (5 1998): 245-58.

Fiddler, Mark. “Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance.” Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum (Minnesota State Bar) 22, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 10.

—. “Existing Indian Family Doctrine.” Letter to supporters. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Indian Child Welfare Law Center, 2 21, 2004.

Fineday, Anita. The ICWA Expert Witness and the Role of the Attorney for the Parent. Powerpoint, Casey Family Programs, Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2012.

Flatten, Mark. Death on a Reservation. Phoenix: Goldwater Institute, 2015.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “Anishinaabe Law and the Round House.” Albany Government Law Review, 2017: 24.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “The Iron Cold of the Marshall Trilogy.” N.D. Law Rev (Michigan State University College of Law) 82 (2006): 627.

FOCSE. Tribal & State to Establish & Enforce Child Support. Publication, Washington DC: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement , 2005.

Fort, Kate. Initial Observations on the ICWA Regulations. Blog, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. 2018 ICWA by the Numbers. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2019.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2015. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2016. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Turtle Talk, 2017.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2017. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2018.

Franson, Janet, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Homicide Investigator (Ret), Founder, Lost and Missing in Indian Country (9 7, 2016).

GAO. Review of American Indian Policy Review Commission. Accounting and Financial Reporting, General Government Division, Congress, Washington DC: General Accounting Office, 1977, 14.

General Congress. “Declaration of Independence.” University of Oklahoma College of Law. July 4, 1776. http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/decind.shtml.

George, Robert P. “Natural Law, the Constitution, and the Theory and Practice of Judicial Review.” Fordham Law Review 69, no. 6 (2001): 2269.

Gerard, Forrest J. Assistant Secretary of Interior. Letter, Department of Interior, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 32.

Goldwater Institute. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PARTS OF INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. July 7, 2015. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/constitutional-rights/equal-protection/goldwater-institute-files-class-action-lawsuit-aga/ (accessed June 20, 2016).

Gould, L Scott. “The Congressional Response to Duro v. Reina: Compromising Sovereignty and the Constitution.” Edited by UC Davis Law School. U.C. Davis Law Review 28, no. 1 (1994): 53, 63 69-75.

GWIF. Foster Care Statistics 2016. U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families; Children’s Bureau. 2018. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf#page=1&view=Introduction (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Haas, Theodore H. “Ten Years of Tribal Government Under I.R.A.” DOI.gov. United States Indian Service. 1947. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/library/internet/subject/upload/Haas-TenYears.pdf (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Hagedorn, Nancy L. “”A Friend to go between Them”: The Interpreter as Cultural Broker during Anglo-Iroquois Councils, 1740-70.” Ethnohistory (Duke University Press) 35, no. 1 (1988): 60-80.

Hagen v. Utah. (US Supreme Court, 1994).

Hallie Bongar White, Jane Larrington. “INTERSECTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD VICTIMIZATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY.” Justice.gov. April 21, 2014. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/legacy/2014/04/21/intersection-dv-cpsa.pdf (accessed July 28, 2016).

Harper, Fowler Vincent. “Natural Law in American Constitutional Theory.” Michigan Law Review 26, no. 62 (1927): 62-82.

Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review (The Harvard Law Review Association) 71, no. 4 (1958): 593-629.

Hazard, S., ed. Pennsylvania Archives (1st Series). Vol. 3. Philadelphia, PA: Joseph Severns, 1852.

Herman, Ellen. Adoption Statistics. Department of History, University of Oregon. 2 24, 2012. https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/adoptionstatistics.htm (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Hintz, James R. “Wilson v. Marchington: The Erosion of TribalCourt Civil Jurisdiction in the Aftermath of Strate v.A-1 Contractors.” Public Land and Resources Law Review, 1999: 145.

Holder, Eric. “Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks During the White House Tribal Nations Conference.” Justice News. Washington DC, 12 3, 2014.

Horwitz, Sara. “The hard lives – and high suicide rate – of Native American children on reservations.” National Security. March 9, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-hard-lives–and-high-suicide-rate–of-native-american-children/2014/03/09/6e0ad9b2-9f03-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html (accessed July 27, 2016).

Hyland, Duane. Running Head: Considering Indian Country. Topic Proposal, Rapid City: NFSH.org, 2014.

ICC. Indian Claims Commission Final Report. Final Commission Report, United States, Washington DC: GPO, 1978.

IHS. Indian Health Service. 2019. https://www.ihs.gov/aboutihs/ (accessed 3 28, 2019).

In re Alexandria Y. G018179 (Fourth Dist., Div. Three, 5 31, 1996).

In re Bridget R. B195282 (Cal. App. 4th, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1483 January 19, 1996).

In re Santos Y. B144822 (Cal. App, 4th, 92 Cal.App.4th 1274 2001).

In re Z.R. and L.R., adoptive parents v . 27-JV-FA-17-117 (MN Court of Appeals, 11 2017).

Indian Country Child Trauma Center. Demographics. Statistical Facts, Oklahoma City: Indian Country Child Trauma Center, 2005.

Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Philadelphia, PA: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938.

Jackson, Andrew. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal” .” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990 (National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]) Record Group 46 (Dec. 1830).

Jackson, Jack C. “Director of Government Affairs, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).” National Conference of American Indians. February 12, 1999. http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/cvrightcensus.htm (accessed 2007).

James Bell Associates, Inc. “Analysis of Funding Resources and Strategies Among American Indian Tribes.” Administration of Children and Families. March 31, 2004. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/fund_res.pdf (accessed June 22, 2016).

Janney, Samuel M. The Life of William Penn. 2nd. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1852.

Jefferson, Thomas. “To Major John Cartwrigt Monticello, June 5, 1824.” American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. Edited by University of Groningen. 1824. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl278.php (accessed June 30, 2016).

Jerry Gardner, Executive Director Tribal. “Tribal Law & Policy Institute.” Santa Monica: ACF, 8 2, 2013.

Johnson v. M’Intosh. 21 U.S. 543; 1823 U.S. 293; 5 L. Ed. 681; 8 Wheat. 543 (U.S., 2 1823).

Jones, B.J. Overview of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 2006. http://www2.mnbar.org/sections/children/history.pdf (accessed April 29, 2007).

Jore, Rick, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Former Montana State Representative (11 15, 2016).

Kaplan, Sarah. “Native American couple sues to let their child be adopted by a white family.” Washington Post. June 10, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/native-american-couple-sues-to-let-their-child-be-adopted-by-a-white-family/ (accessed June 21, 2016).

Karnowski, Steve. Feds Say Native Mob Gang Dented but Work Remains. Minneapolis: ABC News, 2013.

Katz, Colleen C, Mark E Courtney, and Elizabeth Novotny. “Pre-foster Care Maltreatment Class as a Predictor of Maltreatment in Foster Care.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 34, no. 1 (2 2017): 35-49.

Kelley, Marylouise (ACF). “Service needs in rural North Dakota and Montana.” Family Violence Prevention and Services Program Director. Washington DC: ACF, 9 23, 2013.

Kelly, John. “38 Years After ICWA, Feds to Collect Data on Native American Foster Youth.” The Chronicle of Social Change, April 8, 2016.

Kennerson, Marilyn (ACF). “Changes at ACF: Our own takes Casey position at ACF/BIA.” Washington DC: ACF, 8 5, 2013.

Kingfisher, Billie J. Jr. Dogma: Felix S. Cohen, The Indian Law Survey and the Spanish Model. Dissertation, Masters of Arts in History, Oklahoma State University, Graduate College, 2016.

Kinney, Adam F. “The Tribe, the Empire, and the Nation: Enforceability of Pre-Revolutionary Treaties with Native American Tribes.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 39, no. 3 (2007-2008): 897.

Krakoff, Sarah. “They Were Here First: American Indian Tribes, Race, and the Constitutional Minimum.” Stanford Law Review 69 (Feb 2017): 491-548.

Kunesh, Patrice H. A Call for an assessment of the Welfare of Indian Children in South Dakota. Article, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS); University of South Dakota, Harvard University, Vermillion: South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 247, 2007.

LaBeau v. Dakota. 2:92-CV-203 (US Federal District Court: West. Dist. Mich., March 17, 1993).

Lawrence, William J. “In Defense of Indian Rights.” Beyond the Color Line; New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America (Hoover Institution Press), 2002: 391-404.

Legal Inf Inst. Wex Legal Dictionary. Ithaca: Cornell Law School, 2019.

LexisNexis. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. LexisNexis, 2005.

Locust, Carol. Split Feather Study. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

—. “Split Feathers Study.” American Indian Adoptees. n.d. https://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/p/split-feathers-study-by-carol-locust.html (accessed 2 5, 2018).

—. “Split Feathers: Adult American Indians Who Were Placed In Non-Indian Families As Children.” Native Canadian. n.d. http://nativecanadian.ca/Native_Reflections/split_feather_syndrome.htm (accessed 2 5, 2018).

Locust, Carol. Training Director. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center , University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

Lynch, Judy D. “Indian Sovereignty and Judicial Interpretations of the Indian Civil Rights Act.” Washington University Law Review 1979, no. 3,16 (1979): 897.

MacDonald, Peter. “White House Address on the Navajo Code Talkers.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Nov. 27, 2017.

Malone, Tim. The Role of Indian Tribes in our Constitutional System – Two Persistent Problems. Conference, Olympia: Unpublished, 1988.

Margold, Nathan R. “Wheeler-Howard Act–Interpretation” Question 9.” Op. Sol. I.D. Ind. Aff 1917-1974 1 (1934): 484, 490-491.

Marston, Blythe W. “Alaska Native Sovereignty: The Limits of the Tribe-Indian Country Test.” Cornell International Law Journal 17, no. 2 (1984): 33.

Martin, Kenneth. “Thomas Sullivan.” Indian Affairs. Washington DC: Indian Affairs, 11 22, 2013.

Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF). “Region 8 damaging tribal relations.” Spirit Lake. Washington DC: ACF, 11 1, 2013.

McMullen, Marrianne. “Decision on Proposed Removal.” Memorandum. Washington DC: ACF, 5 6, 2016.

McNeil, Kent. “Sovereignty and Indigenous Peoples in North America.” Articles and Book Chapters (Osgoode Hall Law School of York University) 22, no. 2 (2016): 25.

McWilliams, Paul. “English Common Law: Embodiment of the Natural Law.” The Western Australian Jurist 1 (2010): 128-131.

Means, Russell. “Statement to the Senate Special Committee on Indian Affairs.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Jan. 30, 1989.

Meggitt, Jane. Government Money for Native Americans. Online, Bisfluent, Leaf Group Ltd, 2017.

Meyers, Peter C. “Frederick Douglass’s America: Race, Justice, and the Promise of the Founding.” First Principle Series, Jan 11, 2011, 35 ed.: 18.

Michael R. Tilus, PsyD, MP (HHS Public Health). “Letter of Grave Concern: Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services Grievances.” To Ms. Sue Settle, Chief, Dpt of Human Services, BIA. Devils Lake, North Dakota, March 3, 2012.

Miles v. Family Court for Jud’l Dist of Chinle. (Navajo Nation Supreme Court, Arizona January 2008).

Mission Indian Agency. “The Wheeler-Howard Bill – Questions and Answers.” Bulletin. Riverside, CA, April 16, 1934.

Mississippi Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield . 87-980 (U.S. Supreme Court, April 3, 1989).

Mitchell, Donald Craig. Wampum. New York: The Overlook Press, 2016.

MN Dept Human Serv. “Tribal/State Agreement.” St. Paul, Minnesota: State of Minnesota, Feb 22, 2007. 37.

Montana v. United States. (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981).

Moore, Johnston. “The Misapplication of The Indian Child Welfare Act.” The Chronicle of Social Change. April 1, 2015. https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-2/the-misapplication-of-the-indian-child-welfare-act/10872 (accessed June 21, 2016).

Morandi, Larry. “Tribal Trust Lands: From Litigation to Consultation.” States and Tribes: Building New Traditions, August 2004.

Morris v. Tanner. 160 Fed. Appx. 600 (9th Cir. 2005) (PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, April 2006).

Morris, Elizabeth. Child Abuse within Indian Country. Literature Review, Helm’s School of Gov’t, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2016.

Morris, Elizabeth. Spirit Lake Town Hall, February 27. Primary, witness, Fort Totten: CAICW, 2013.

Morris, Elizabeth. The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections. Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2017.

Morris, Roland John. Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. Seattle: Concerning Tribal Jurisdiction, 1998.

Morton v. Mancari. 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court, 6 17, 1974).

MSU. “The French and Indian War.” MSU College of Social Science. Edited by Randall Schaetzl. Dept of Geography, Environment and Spatial Science. 2018. http://www.geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/frenchindian_war.html.

NARA. “Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes (The Dawes Commission), 1893-1914.” National Archoves. June 26, 2017. https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/dawes (accessed 4 26, 2019).

—. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal”.” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990;. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]. Dec. 6, 1830. (accessed 2018).

Natelson, Rob. “Constitutional Law Professor.” Email Correspondence. 1 22, 2019.

Natelson, Robert G. “The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause.” St. John’s Law Review 80 (2006): 789, 805–06.

Natelson, Robert. “The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Denver University Law Review 85 (2007): 201.

NAU. “Indigenous Voices of the Colorado Plateau: The Merriam Report of 1928.” Northern Arizona University Library. Northern Arizona University. 2005. http://library.nau.edu/speccoll/exhibits/indigenous_voices/merriam_report.html (accessed 6 14, 2019).

NCAI. Trust Land. 2017. http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/land-natural-resources/trust-land (accessed 11 17, 2017).

Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, Character, and Leadership in America. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012, 2012.

Nicolai, Shanley Swanson, and Merete Saus. “Acknowledging the Past while Looking to the Future: Conceptualizing Indigenous Child Trauma.” Child Welfare Journal 92, no. 5 (2012): 110.

NICWA. Testimony of Sarah L. Kastelic. Testimony, Washington DC: Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, 2015, 1-17.

NICWA, SAMHSA. “Native Children: Trauma and Its Effects.” Trauma-Informed Care Fact Sheet. Portland: National Indian Child Welfare Association, April 2014.

NICWA/AAIA. A Guide to the Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. White paper, Washington DC: Nat’l Indian Child Welfare Assoc. & Assoc on American Indian Affairs, 2013, 1-20.

NPS. “Pushmataha.” National Park Service. Sept. 14, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/people/pushmataha.htm.

O’Callaghan, E. B., ed. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons, and Co.,, 1855.

Occom, Samson. “Short, Plain, and Honest Account of my Self.” Edited by Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Bernd Peyer, The Elders Wrote (Dartmouth College Archives), (1768) 1982: 12-18.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States. (United States Supreme Court, 1824).

Otis, D.S. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands. Edited by Francis Paul Prucha. University of Oklahoma Press , 1973.

Pommersheim, Frank. “Written testimony in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.” (104th Cong. 1st Sess.) 1996: 432.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes.” Montana Law Review 59, no. 1, Article 4 (Winter 1998): 51-80.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes: A Reply to Professor Jensen.” Montana Law Review, 1995/1999: 19.

Prucha, Frances Paul. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976.

Prygoski, Philip J. “From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court’s changing stance on tribal sovereignty.” GP Solo Magazine, 7 2, 2015.

Publius. “Federalist Papers.” Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman School of Law. 1787. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp.

Pushmataha. “Response to Chief Tecumseh on War Against the Americans.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Mississippi, 1811.

Raab. “Andrew Jackson.” Raab Collection. 10 15, 2019. https://www.raabcollection.com/andrew-jackson-autograph/andrew-jackson-signed-sold-president-andrew-jackson-original-instructions (accessed 3 10, 2019).

Reagan, Ronald. “Statement on Indian Policy, 1983.” The American Presidency Project. Edited by John Woolley, & Gerhard Peters. Univ. of Calif, Santa Barbara. 1 24, 1983. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41665 (accessed 6 30, 2017).

Regan, Shawn. “5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty.” Forbes. 3 14, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-government-keeps-native-americans-in-poverty/#739501c6cc62 (accessed 12 16, 2016).

Reid v. Covert. 701 (US Supreme Court, 1956).

Reply Brief for the United States. 03-107 (U.S. Supreme Court, Washington DC 2003).

Rice v. Cayetano. 528 U.S. 495 (U.S., 2000).

Robinson Jr, John. “The Binding Guidance Principle: Using the Indian Trust Doctrine to Trump the APA.” American Indian Law Journal 4:1 (2015): 26.

Roe Bubar, Marc Winokur, Winona Bartlemay. Perceptions of Methamphetamine Use in Three Western Tribal Communities: Implications for Child Abuse in Indian Country. Investigative Report, West Hollywood: Tribal Law and Policy Institute, 2007.

Rollings, Willard Hughes. “Citizenship and Suffrage: The Native American Struggle For Civil Rights in the American West, 1830-1965.” Nevada Law Journal 5, no. 126 (Fall 2004): 126-140.

Rolnick, Addie. “The Promise of Mancari: Indian Political Rights as Racial Remedy.” NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) 86 (2011): 102-183.

Roozen, Sylvia, Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters, Gerjo Kok, David Townend, Jan Nijhuis, and Leopold Curfs. “Worldwide Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review Including Meta-Analysis.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 40, no. 1 (1 2016): 18–32.

Roser, Max. Child Mortality. Statistics, Our World in Data, 2019.

Rowley, Sean. 43rd Symposium on the American Indian at Northeastern State University . April 17, 2015. http://m.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/icwa-discussed-at-symposium-seminar/article_08846b3a-e543-11e4-8421-7744ec7971c6.html?mode=jqm (accessed April 20, 2015).

Ruoff, A LaVonne Brown, ed. “Samson Occom (Mohegan) (1723-1792).” n.d.

Russell Means: About. 2014. http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/about/ (accessed October 5, 2014).

Sampson, Dimitra H. Child and Sexual Abuse in Indian Country. Lecture, Sioux Falls: Dept. of Justice, 2007.

Scheel, Ann Birmingham. Arizona Indian Country Report. Annual Report, Phoenix: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2011.

Schumacher-Matos, Edward. SD: Indian Foster Care 1: NPR Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry. Ombudsman Report, Ombudsman, National Public Radio, New York: National Public Radio, 2013, 80.

Scofield, Ruth Packwood. Behind the Buckskin Curtain. New York: Carlton Press, Inc., 1992.

Seattle, Chief. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). January 12, 1854. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4706/speech-cautioning-americans-to-deal-justly-with-his-people-january-12-1854/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Skillen v. Menz. 1998 MT 43 (Supreme Court of the State of Montana, March 3, 1998).

Spaith, James. The Native American: At What Level Sovereignty? Draft, Exhibit 1, The White House, U.S. Government, Washington DC: Leonard Garment, Assistant to the President, 1974, 77.

Speed, Nathan. “Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Boston University Law Review, 2007, 87 ed.: 467, 470-71.

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation. 423 (U.S. Supreme Court, May 15, 1899).

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Stuart, Paul. Nations Within a Nation: Historical Statistics of American Indians. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 12th Mandated Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 13th Mandate Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

—. “Continual Rape of 13-yr-old Ignored.” To Superiors at the Administration of Children and Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, June 10, 2014.

—. “Criminal Corruption continues at Spirit Lake.” To DC Superiors with the Administration of Children & Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, May 6, 2014.

—. “Prevented from Testifying.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 7 1, 2014.

—. “Response.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 2 11, 2014.

—. “Sullivan rebukes his DC Superiors for their negligence of children on Indian reservations.” To ACF Superiors in DC. Denver: ACF, April 4, 2014.

—. “Summary of Correspondence.” Denver: ACF, 12 19, 2013.

Talton v. Mayes. 163 U.S. 376, 384 (U.S., 1896).

Texas Dept of Family and Protective Services. Legal Basis for Child Protective Services. Houston, n.d.

The Institute for Government Research. “The Problem of Indian Administration.” Edited by Lewis Meriam. Studies in Administration (The John Hopkins Press), February 1928.

The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online, National Archives. 13 June, 2018. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378. (accessed July 30, 2018).

Turanovic, Jillian J, and Travis C Pratt. “Consequences of Violent Victimization for Native American Youth in Early Adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46, no. 6 (6 2017): 1333 – 1350.

Udall, Representative Morris K. “The American Indians and Civil Rights.” Selected Speeches. Washington DC: Arizona University, 10 4, 1965.

United States. “Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, Appendix.” First People. September 20, 1872. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/AgreementWithTheSissetonAndWahpetonBandsOfSiouxIndians1872.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States Commission on Civil Rights. “Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act: U.S. Civil Rights Commission Hearing, Phoenix, AZ.” Washington DC: GPO, September 29, 1988.

United States. “Constitution.” Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. 1787. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/.

—. “General Allotment Act of 1887.” 24 Stat 388. Washinhgton DC, December 6, 1886.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act OF 1978.” Vols. Public Law 95-608, 25 USC Chapter 2. Washington DC, 1978.

—. “Indian Civil Rights Act.” Vols. Public Law 90–284, 82 Stat. 73. Washington DC, 1968.

—. “P.L. 68-175: Indian Citizenship Act.” 43 Stat. 253, Ch. 233. Washington DC: GPO, June 2, 1924.

—. “The Dawes Act of 1887.” The Avalon Project – Yale Law School. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dawes.asp (accessed 4 6, 2019).

—. “Transcript of Treaty of Fort Laramie.” OurDocuments.gov. April 29, 1868. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=42&page=transcript (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Cherokee 7 Stat., 311.” Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II. Compiled by Charles J. Kappler. Washington, 5 6, 1828. 288-292.

—. “Treaty with the Chippewa.” 2 22, 1855.

—. “Treaty with the Omaha.” Treaties. March 16, 1854. http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Treaties/10_Stat_1043_Omaha.htm (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Sioux – Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands.” First People. February 19, 1867. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/TreatyWithTheSiouxSissetonAndWahpetonBands1867.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States v. Billy Jo Lara. 541 U.S. (U.S. Supreme, 2003).

United States v. Lopez. 93-1260 (U.S.S.C., 4 26, 1995).

United States v. Rogers. 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (U.S. Supreme, March 9, 1846).

United States v. Wheeler,. 76-1629 (US Supreme Court, March 27, 1978).

Univ of Illinois. “Full text of “Monthly catalog of United States Government publications”.” LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSTIY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN. July 1947. http://www.archive.org/stream/monthlycatalogof531947unit2/monthlycatalogof531947unit2_djvu.txt (accessed 11 16, 2016).

Univ. Alaska. Indian Country Statute (1948). 2018. http://tribalmgmt.uaf.edu/tm112/Unit-2/Indian-Country-Statute-1948.

University of Oklahoma. Childhood Trauma Series in Indian Country. Presentation, Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City: Indian Health Service TeleBehavior Health Center, 2013.

US Census Bureau. Nonwhite Population by Race. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Legislative Reference Service, 1960.

US Census Bureau. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 2010. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, US. Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: US. Dept of Commerce, 2010.

US Census Bureau. Tribal Complete Count Committee Handbook. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC: United States Census 2000, 2001, 4-99.

US Census Bureau. US Census. Statistics, US Census Bureau, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Dept of Commerce, 2000.

US Congress. “Congressional Record ICWA.” 95th Cong. 2nd Sess. 124 (1978): 38101-112.

US Congress, House. Concurrent Resolutions, Indian Affairs. House of Respresentatives, Washington DC: GPO, 1953.

—. “Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Resources, US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs.” Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Washington DC: GPO: 113 Cong. 2nd Sess, June 24, 2014.

US Congress. Conference. S. 2981: An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1977, and for other purposes. House Report: Rpt No. 94-1695, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 94th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1976, 4.

US Congress. House. “H.R. 12533 – Indian Child Welfare Act.” Congress.gov. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1978.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. House Report: H. Rept 104-542, Committee on Ways and Means, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3828: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1996. Congressional Report, Natural Resource Committee: Indian Affairs, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104 Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. Senate Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 104TH Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Amendments to the Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 104-574. Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess, June 26, 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-845. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 2nd Sess., May 11, 1988.

—. “Hearings before a Subcommittee of The Committee on Indian Affairs United States Senate.” Survey of the Conditions of the Indians of the United States. Washington DC: GPO: 70th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1929.

—. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Program. Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess., April 7.8, 1974.

US Congress. Senate. Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment S. 569. Senate Bill, Indian Affairs Committee, Senate, Washington DC: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., 1997.

—. “Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, US Senate and the Committe on Resources, US House of Representatives.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 105-224. Washington DC: GPO: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1997.

—. “Oversight Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-574. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov 10, 1987.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1214: Indian Child Welfare Act. Congressional Report, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., 1977.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1962: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment. Congressional Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. S. 721 – An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1974, and for other purposes. Senate Report: S.Rept 93-53, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 1st Sess., 1973.

US Congress: House. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Aflairs and Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.” Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. S.1214, Serial No. 96-42. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong; 2nd Sess., Feb-Mar 9, 1978. 308.

Vattel, Monsieur Emer (Emmerich) de. The Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. 6th American. Translated by Esq. Joseph Chitty. West Brookfield, MA: Merriam and Cooke, [1758,1773] 1844.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Edited by George Grant. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.

Victoria, Franciscus De. The First Relectio Of The Reverend Father, Brother Franciscus De Victoria, On The Indians Lately Discovered. 1696. Edited by Johann Georg Simon. Translated by John Pawley Bate. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Ingolstadt, Cologne and Frankfort, 1580.

Vieru, Simona. “Aristotle’s Influence on the Natural Law Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas.” The Western Australian Jurist (Murdoch University) 1 (2010): 115-122.

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. “The Treaty of Logg’s Town, 1752.” 1906: 154–174.

Wald, Patricia M. Assistant Attorney General. Letter, Department of Justice, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 35, 40.

Washington, George. “The Avalon Project: Washington’s Farewell Address.” Lillian Goldman Law Library. Yale Law School. 1796. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp (accessed September 17, 2015).

Weingast, Barry R. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1995: 1-31.

White House. “Documents related to the Indian Claims Commission.” Documents 1973-77, Bradley H. Patterson Files, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, Washington DC, 1973-77, 18.

Wilkinson, Charles. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth–How Long a Time is That.” California Law Review 63 (5 1975): 601-661.

Wilson, James. “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals.” Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute. 1790-91. http://founding.com/founders-library/american-political-figures/james-wilson/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/ (accessed 4 8, 2019).

Woodward, Stephanie. “Suicide is epidemic for American Indian youth: What more can be done?” 100 Reporters. Oct 10, 2012. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14340090-suicide-is-epidemic-for-american-indian-youth-what-more-can-be-done (accessed July 27, 2016).

Worcester v. Georgia. (US Supreme Court, 1832).

Read CAICW’s Amicus in the Brackeen ICWA case

 Comments Off on Read CAICW’s Amicus in the Brackeen ICWA case
Feb 272019
 

…’the ICWA imposes sweeping regulations that are at best marginally related to commerce. The ICWA also intrudes on a quintessential area of state law: family and domestic matters. This intrusion obliterates the bedrock constitutional distinction between federal and local power, effectively allowing the federal government free reign to regulate however, and whatever, it wishes simply by invoking the Indian Commerce Clause. The ICWA, therefore, is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s authority under the Indian Commerce Clause.’

The amicus can be read here…

https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/christianallianceamicus.pdf