Podcasts about brackeen

In celebration of Native American Heritage month, Keith Richotte Jr., author of the forthcoming book, The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution and Matthew L.M. Fletcher of the University of Michigan discuss Native American history and law through the stories of landmark Supreme Court cases. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources:  Matthew L.M. Fletcher, The Ghost Road: Anishinaabe Responses to Indian Hating (2020) Keith Richotte Jr., The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution (forthcoming 2025) United States v. Kagama (1886) United States v. Lara (2004) Matthew L.M. Fletcher, “Muskrat Textualism,” Northwestern Law Review, Jan. 16, 2022. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883) Major Crimes Act Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) Montana v. United States (1981) Indian Civil Rights Act Duro v. Reina (1990) Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) Turtle Talk Blog Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decisive confirmation of the Indian Child Welfare Act two years ago in Brackeen v. Haaland, the law has seen victories and challenges. In a win for tribal sovereignty, a decision by the California Supreme Court requires state case workers to make more of an effort to ascertain a foster child's Native identity status. Congress is considering a bill that would strengthen state-by-state compliance with the 45-year-old law. And the investigative new outlet Reveal explores questions about how a Utah public official was able to adopt a Northern Cheyenne child without ever triggering the standard ICWA process.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decisive confirmation of the Indian Child Welfare Act two years ago in Brackeen v. Haaland, the law has seen victories and challenges. In a win for tribal sovereignty, a decision by the California Supreme Court requires state case workers to make more of an effort to ascertain a foster child's Native identity status. Congress is considering a bill that would strengthen state-by-state compliance with the 45-year-old law. And the investigative new outlet Reveal explores questions about how a Utah public official was able to adopt a Northern Cheyenne child without ever triggering the standard ICWA process.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Haaland v Brackeen. In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Indian Child Welfare Act's restrictions on placement of Native American children violate anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment? The case was decided on June 15, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is consistent with Congress's Article 1 authority and does not violate anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment; the parties lack standing to litigate their other challenges to ICWA's placement preferences. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court. The Court has consistently recognized the “plenary and exclusive”—though not absolute—power of Congress to legislate with respect to Indian tribes. The challengers claim that ICWA infringes on the states' authority over family law, but Court precedent establishes that when Congress validly exercises its Article 1 powers, federal law preempts conflicting state family laws. While the Constitution does not expressly grant Congress the power to regulate custody proceedings of Indian children, the Court has interpreted the Constitution to authorize Congress to regulate “Indian affairs,” which is broadly inclusive. The anti-commandeering arguments similarly fail. Two of the challenged provisions apply not only to government entities, but also to private parties. A demand that public or private actors can satisfy does not require the use of sovereign power and thus does not violate anti-commandeering principles. A third challenged provision requires the states to maintain certain records related to child placement and provide them upon request to the Secretary or the Indian child's tribe. This provision also does not violate anti-commandeering principles, which apply “distinctively” to a state court's adjudicative responsibilities. Congress may impose ancillary recordkeeping requirements related to state-court proceedings without violating the Tenth Amendment. Finally, while the challengers also raise equal protection and non-delegation challenges to ICWA's placement preferences, they must first show they have standing by demonstrating that they have suffered an injury in fact that is “‘fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” The challengers cannot make this showing and thus lack standing on these claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in part, to elaborate on the history of the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that because there is no express constitutional provision that authorizes Congress to enact ICWA, it must be unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority's decision is contrary to the best interests of the children affected. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In the second episode of Rez Judicata, Bryan talks with Angel Smith about the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), how it weaved into her personal life, and how it shaped who she became as an adult. Links to the cases mentioned in the episode: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-399 Haaland v. Brackeen - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-376 For more information on Angel Smith https://www.aros-law.com

In Berkeley Talks episode 192, Sarah Deer, a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma and a University Distinguished Professor at the University of Kansas, discusses the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law passed in 1978 that aims to keep Native children in their families and communities. She also talks about the recent Supreme Court decision in Brackeen v. Haaland, which upheld ICWA, and explores the future of ICWA. “I want to begin by just talking about why ICWA was passed, and it has to do with a very tragic history in the United States of removing children from Native homes,” said Deer, chief justice for the Prairie Island Indian Community Court of Appeals, at a UC Berkeley event in December 2023. “This issue really became a profound harm to Native people during the boarding school era, in which the policy of the federal government was to remove children from their Native homes and send them to boarding schools, sometimes thousands of miles away. At these boarding schools, the attempt was to civilize — so-called 'civilize' — Indian children, which was really a euphemism for destroying their identity.” Later in the talk, she continued, “We still see a need for ICWA because we still see a higher percentage of Native children being placed in out-of-home care. There may be a variety of reasons for that, but it took over a century to damage the relationship between Native children and their communities.”This Dec. 8 event was sponsored by UC Berkeley's Joseph A. Myers Center for Research on Native American Issues, part of the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues. Its co-sponsors were the Center for Race and Gender; Native American Student Development; and the Native American Law Student Association.Listen to the episode and read the transcript on Berkeley News (news.berkeley.edu/podcasts).Music by Blue Dot Sessions.Photo courtesy of Sarah Deer. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rock Icon Jaime Brackeen flies on in as we discuss Scrub Daddy, whether God is making men go bald, drinking from a boot, and Jaime tries and fails to get Dewey into therapy before we wrap with a game of "Are You A Bird or R2D2?" Bird List: Turkey Vulture Great Blue Heron Great Egret Black-necked Stilt Black-crowned Night Heron Belted Kingfisher Mallard Double-crested Cormorant Rock Pigeon Spotted Sandpiper Black Phoebe Killdeer Snowy Egret --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/birder-barely-knowher/support

The Dad Lounge is like Cheers for At-Home Dads. You wanna go where everybody knows your name. It is the perfect place for meeting like-minded dads. Check out the video segment Phil mentions from NBC Today Show "Dads Got This" https://youtu.be/qngjCnm2PuE --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/homedadchat/message

This past term, the Supreme Court handed down two major decisions about Native American law. In Arizona v. Navajo Nation, the Court ruled 5-4 that a treaty did not require the U.S. Government to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajo Nation; and in Haaland v. Brackeen, the Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In this episode, Native American law experts Professor Marcia Zug of the University of South Carolina Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute join to help unpack these key Native American law cases. They also dive more deeply into one specific member of the Court—Justice Neil Gorsuch—and his unique stance toward how the Constitution applies to issues relating to Native American tribes—from his dissent in Haaland, to his majority opinion in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case from 2020, and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Arizona v. Navajo Nation (2023) Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Marcia Zug, “ICWA's Irony”, American Indian Law Review (2021) Tim Sandefur, Brief Amici Curiae of Goldwater Institute in Support of State of Texas and Brackeen, Haaland v. Brackeen Adam Liptak, “Justice Neil Gorsuch Is a Committed Defender of Tribal Rights”, The New York Times (June 15, 2023) John Dossett, “Justice Gorsuch and Federal Indian Law”, American Bar Association (Sept. 1, 2017) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

In the Public Interest is pleased to continue our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. Our second episode welcomes WilmerHale Partner Daniel Volchok, who focuses his practice on appellate litigation and has an extensive Native American law practice. In this episode, Volchok joins co-host Felicia Ellsworth to discuss the Court's decision in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case concerning preferences for tribal families in the adoption of Native American children. They discuss the history of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the core issues relating to the ICWA presented to the Court in this case. Volchok shares about the amicus brief WilmerHale filed on behalf of 87 members of Congress defending in full the constitutionality of the ICWA. Ellsworth and Volchok also talk about the current landscape of legal questions involving tribal rights that may work their way up to the Court in the future.

Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! Listen here for a breakdown of Haaland v. Brackeen, a SCOTUS case regarding ICWA (The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978). If interested in more background information, check out the following links: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-376 https://www.aclu.org/cases/brackeen-v-haaland

Hey True Advocates. It's me, Eric Carter Landin, and before we get into the episode, I wanted to give you some context into why we decided to cover this. A lot of people were talking about the June 15th, 2023 Supreme Court decision on Haaland vs Brackeen case which upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act. ICWA is a very important legislation that is related to the sovereignty of the First -Nations Jackie and I were talking one day and she had expressed to me that she wanted to really dive into why the Indian Child Welfare Act was so important to upholding sovereignty for native tribes, and of course, I immediately agreed. I want to thank Jackie Moranty for researching and writing this script. But I also wanted to just set the context because this episode is a little bit different from most of the episodes that we do, but it is advocacy related and it does affect New Mexico.I'm happy that ICWA was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was the right decision.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/4347262/advertisement

In the second of three episodes, Aughie and Nia discuss the major decisions released in June by the U.S. Supreme Court; in this episode, the cases covered are: Haaland v. Brackeen, U.S. v Texas, Groff v. DeJoy, Counterman v. Colorado and Moore v. Harper.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Haaland v. Brackeen. The case was primarily concerned with the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law enacted in 1978 that governs state-level adoption and foster care cases involving Native American children. Among other provisions, the ICWA gives tribal governments jurisdiction over the adoption of Native American children who reside on a reservation or have certain tribal connections.In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's finding that the ICWA is constitutional, rejected petitioners' Tenth Amendment argument, and found that petitioners lacked the standing required for other challenges made. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion for the Court; Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions. Please join us as Jennifer Weddle discusses the Court's findings.

We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hansen, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge.

This week, Lindsay Langholz speaks with Professor Wenona T. Singel to debrief the Supreme Court's decision in Haaland v. Brackeen about the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), long considered the "gold standard" of child welfare policies. The episode delves into the statute's history, the details of the case, and the sweeping impact of the Supreme Court upholding ICWA, for now.  Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Lindsay Langholz, ACS Senior Director of Policy and Program Guest: Wenona T. Singel, Director, Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State College of Law Link: "Lawyering the Indian Child Welfare Act," by Wenona T. Singel and Matthew L.M. Fletcher" Link: National Indian Child Welfare Association Link: The National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition Link: SCOTUS decision in Haaland v. Brackeen Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2023.

Welcome to USModernist Radio, where we talk and laugh with people who enjoy, own, create, dream about, preserve, love, and hate Modernist architecture, the most exciting and controversial buildings in the world.  Joining us today is one of foremost architectural historians in the world, professor, and former Museum of Modern Art architecture curator Barry Bergdoll, plus a special guest!  Later, music with legendary jazz pianist Joanne Brackeen. 

Last week the Supreme Court made an historic ruling upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act. Rebecca Nagle, host of Crooked Media's This Land podcast, takes us inside the courtroom in this special bonus episode to break down the decision, how we got here, and what it all means. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act in a case called Haaland v. Brackeen. The decision comes almost exactly 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, which planted the seed for last week's big ruling. To mark the new landmark decision, More Perfect re-airs the Radiolab episode that tells the story of two families, a painful history, and a young girl caught in the middle. Voices in the episode include: • Allison Herrera — KOSU Indigenous Affairs reporter • Matt and Melanie Capobianco — Veronica's adoptive parents • Dusten Brown — Veronica's biological father • Mark Fiddler — attorney for the Capobiancos • Marcia Zug — University of South Carolina School of Law professor • Bert Hirsch — attorney formerly of the Association on American Indian Affairs • Chrissi Nimmo — Deputy Attorney General for Cherokee Nation • Terry Cross — founding executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (now serving as senior advisor) • Lori Alvino McGill — attorney for Christy Maldonado, Veronica's biological mother Learn more: • 2013: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl • 2023: Haaland v. Brackeen • "Baby Veronica belongs with her adoptive parents" by Christy Maldonado • "Doing What's Best for the Tribe" by Marcia Zug • "The Court Got Baby Veronica Wrong" by Marcia Zug • "A Wrenching Adoption Case" by The New York Times Editorial Board • National Indian Child Welfare Association • In Trust podcast, reported by Allison Herrera   Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

This week the Court handed down five opinions, two of which involved questions related to Indian Tribes, including one of the term’s major cases, Haaland v. Brackeen. The decisions are heavy on textual analysis, showing that Justice Kagan was right when she said “we’re all textualists now.” Your hosts discuss the opinions, and then Zack […]

The Supreme Court upheld various provisions of the controversial Indian Child Welfare Act last week.  The facts of Haaland v. Brackeen, and some provisions of the Act, raise dramatic questions about questions of best interests of children, of the nature of tribal entities, and of who speaks for whom.  The opinion itself largely sidesteps many of these questions and instead dives into areas which Professor Amar has long offered his expertise - going back nearly 20 years or more.  No wonder, then, that he is cited twice in this case, and now our listeners have the chance to learn from the acknowledged expert on these matters.

Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment? The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023)  

The Supreme Court released its opinion in Haaland vs. Brackeen, a case that challenged the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. In a surprising 7-2 vote, the Court upheld ICWA. Rebecca Nagle, host of This Land, joins Leah, Kate, and Melissa to unpack the opinion and what it means for indigenous families.Listen to two previous episodes with Rebecca Nagle: "Go Down Clutching the Constitution" from March 2022 when the case was granted, and "The Uncertain Future of the Indian Child Welfare Act" from November 2022, right after oral arguments.Listen to season two of This Land, which tells the backstory of Haaland vs. BrackeenDonate to Barry Jones' release fund and listen to the episode we did with Liliana Seguara on his case: "Innocence Isn't Enough"We're going to be hosting Strict Scrutiny Office Hours! It'll be a special video on YouTube in about a week where we'll answer your questions about the SCOTUS decisions out so far, the big ones yet to drop, Trump's indictment, who should win Drag Race All Stars 8. Send a voice memo to us with your question to strictscrutiny@crooked.com. Please keep them to 20 seconds or less, and if you're okay with it, include your name. We need these by this Wednesday, June 21st.Follow @CrookedMedia on Instagram and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Last week, in a surprising 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court fully upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act in Brackeen v. Haaland. We break down the full opinion of the court and their various reasons for siding in support of the 1978 law that was passed at a time when nearly a third of indigenous children were separated from their family. We are joined for reaction to the Brackeen ruling by three women close to the case:-Kate Fort of Michigan State University, one of the foremost experts on ICWA in this country, who assisted with the tribes' preparation for the Supreme Court oral arguments-Chrissi Ross Nimmo, deputy attorney general for Cherokee Nation, one of the the tribes that officially was party to the case-Rebecca Nagle, journalist and architect of the podcast This Land, whose second season focused on the Brackeen case. Reading RoomIndian Child Welfare Act Stands, Native Families Empoweredhttps://bit.ly/3PjEV3LThe Imprint's continuing coverage of Brackeen v. Haaland, 2018-2023https://bit.ly/3ttyzTyOpinion in Brackeen v. Haalandhttps://bit.ly/3PhDGCaImprint Reporting by Nancy Marie Spearshttps://imprintnews.org/author/nancy-marie-spears

Press Conference: Navajo Nation's Response to Supreme Court Decision in Haaland v. Brackeen WINDOW ROCK, Arizona -- Monday, June 19, the Navajo Nation will host a press conference to discuss its reaction to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Haaland v. Brackeen affirming the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Nation's panel will include Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, Speaker of the 25th Navajo Nation Council Crystalyne Curley, Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch, and Navajo Nation Division of Social Services Executive Director Thomas Cody. Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 after many years of overreach by state child welfare services and state family courts in breaking up Native families and facilitating adoptions of Native children by non-Indians. Under ICWA, Congress mandated minimum protections of Indian children and families to maintain a child's cultural connections to their Indian family and Indigenous Nation. ICWA also created preferences if an Indian child's extended family, a family of that child's Indigenous Nation, or another Indigenous Nation, were available as a foster or adoptive home. The Navajo Nation intervened in the case as a party to defend ICWA from attack by the Brackeen family, who adopted one Navajo child, and seeks to adopt a second Navajo child, despite the Nation's identification of Navajo families willing and able to care for the children. The Nation collaborated with other tribal nations in filing a joint brief before the Court urging it to uphold ICWA as a vital statute protecting the sovereignty and cultural integrity of Indian tribes. In the Supreme Court's June 15, 2023, opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and six other justices agreed that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass ICWA under the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They also held ICWA does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine arising from the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. In doing so, the Court has honored fundamental principles of Federal Indian Law and Constitutional Law. The press conference will take place Monday, June 19 at 10 a.m. Mountain Standard Time at the offices of Dickinson Wright, 1850 N Central Ave, Phoenix Conference Room, Concourse level, Phoenix, AZ 85004, and via Zoom. The Navajo Nation remains committed to defending ICWA and the rights of Indian children, as well as the inherent sovereign authority of Indigenous Nations.

Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment? The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023) Music by Epidemic Sound Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.  

This week the Court handed down five opinions, two of which involved questions related to Indian Tribes, including one of the term's major cases, Haaland v. Brackeen. The decisions are heavy on textual analysis, showing that Justice Kagan was right when she said "we're all textualists now." Your hosts discuss the opinions, and then Zack tests GianCarlo's knowledge of some lesser-known facts about the Supreme Court's history.Further reading and listening:Professor Natelson on the Indian Child Welfare Act.Zack on Lac du Flambeau.Cully Stimson and Paul Larkin on Smith.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In upholding a landmark measure meant to keep adopted American-Indian children with tribal families, the Supreme Court again declined to embrace a colorblind view of federal law. The conservative argument that race should almost never be a factor in setting and interpreting federal law hasn't fared well this term. But that could change with decisions pending in challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. In a 7-2 ruling on Thursday in Haaland v. Brackeen that kept in place the decades-old Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices dismissed race-related claims on technical grounds. And the color-blind arguments were explicitly rejected in the justices' surprise ruling June 8 in Allen v. Milligan. The 7-2 court there said claims under the Voting Rights Act didn't have to be “race-neutral.” But Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler explain why the outcome could be different the affirmative action cases, which the court is expected to hand down before the end of June. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. We consider this coverage so essential that we're taking down the paywall for all of it. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. And sign up for the pop-up newsletter to see the latest every week in your inbox. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern join forces for this Opinionpalooza extra episode of Amicus where they discuss Haaland v Brackeen, a case that could have upended Indian Law, but didn't. The case concerned the Indian Child Welfare Act, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion also reveals some tensions among the Supreme Court's conservative justices. Together, Dahlia and Mark assess what another unexpected win can tell us about the shape of the current court.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. We consider this coverage so essential that we're taking down the paywall for all of it. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. And sign up for the pop-up newsletter to see the latest every week in your inbox. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern join forces for this Opinionpalooza extra episode of Amicus where they discuss Haaland v Brackeen, a case that could have upended Indian Law, but didn't. The case concerned the Indian Child Welfare Act, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion also reveals some tensions among the Supreme Court's conservative justices. Together, Dahlia and Mark assess what another unexpected win can tell us about the shape of the current court.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. We consider this coverage so essential that we're taking down the paywall for all of it. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. And sign up for the pop-up newsletter to see the latest every week in your inbox. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern join forces for this Opinionpalooza extra episode of Amicus where they discuss Haaland v Brackeen, a case that could have upended Indian Law, but didn't. The case concerned the Indian Child Welfare Act, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion also reveals some tensions among the Supreme Court's conservative justices. Together, Dahlia and Mark assess what another unexpected win can tell us about the shape of the current court.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In episode 151 of Imagine Otherwise, host Cathy Hannabach interviews Indigenous studies and literature professor Katie Walkiewicz about states' rights and the role this concept has played in US settler colonialism, enslavement, and dispossession as well as in radical projects seeking to create alternative political structures. Katie Walkiewicz is an enrolled citizen of Cherokee Nation, an assistant professor of literature at the University of California, San Diego, and the associate director of the Indigenous Futures Institute. They chat about Katie's new book Reading Territory: Indigenous and Black Freedom, Removal, and the Nineteenth-Century State. The book shows how federalism and states' rights were used to imagine US states into existence while clashing with relational forms of territoriality asserted by Indigenous and Black people. They also explore how states rights have been mobilized in two landmark Supreme Court cases: McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) and Haaland v. Brackeen (2023). In addition to tracing the violent imposition of states' rights as tools for anti-Indigeneity and anti-Blackness, they also investigate how Black communities and Indigenous nations have sought to reimagine what a state could be, including through statehood campaigns for Black- and Native-run states. Finally, they close out our conversation with a vision for a world of Indigenous and Black freedom, one beyond the bounds of both the nation and the state. Transcript and show notes: https://ideasonfire.net/151-katie-walkiewicz

Sam and Emma host Peter Shamshiri, or Law Boy on Twitter, co-host of the 5-4 Podcast, to discuss some of the recent big decisions coming out of the Supreme Court, and what's still left on the docket. Sam and Emma start off by taking another look at some of the reactions to the big Trump indictment prior to his arraignment this afternoon in Miami. They include Alan Dershowitz, who famously didn't doubt the severity of the indictment (he did, days ago), discussing how bad this looks for Trump, and Speaker McCarthy going with the "bathroom doors lock" defense for why Trump would have multiple boxes of classified documents in his bathroom in Mar-A-Lago. Then Peter joins the show to discuss whether he'd go to bat for Trump in Florida since he apparently is still looking for lawyers, but then more seriously dives into the shocking Milligan decision, where Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts sided with the liberals to preserve the Voting Rights Act. Sam, Emma and Peter then discuss the Talevski case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's first majority opinion, that, via a narrow ruling, preserved the structure of Medicaid. They then look to the future as to how the court might view the affirmative action and student debt decisions that are still before them, and if there are any other cases that Peter has his eye on (keep track of Brackeen v. Haaland, a case involving the Indian Child Welfare Act.) And in the Fun Half, the MR Crew discuss Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani wanting to shove Hunter Biden's laptop up Bill Barr's ass, James Comer DEFINITELY having something from that FBI form him and Chuck Grassley think will indict the "Biden Crime Family", Tulsi Gabbard's big announcement that she's BACK in the military (heading up the PsyOps division, incidentally), the big New Yorker piece about Bari Weiss's OTHER sham venture, plus, your calls & IM's! Check out the "Against The Web" audiobook by Michael Brooks, narrated by Sam here: https://www.audible.com/pd/Against-the-Web-Audiobook/B0C62G3P38 Check it out at Scribd as well: https://www.scribd.com/audiobook/640237251/Against-the-Web-A-Cosmopolitan-Answer-to-the-New-Right Follow Peter on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy Check out the 5-4 Podcast here: https://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod Check out the If Books Could Kill podcast: https://www.patreon.com/IfBooksPod Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Zippix Toothpicks: Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vape and get some nicotine infused toothpicks at https://zippixtoothpicks.com/ today, and get 10% off your first order by using the code MAJORITY at checkout. Your lungs will be glad you did. Ritual: Get 10% off during your first 3 months. Go to https://ritual.com/MAJORITY to start Ritual or add Essential For Men to your subscription today. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Haaland v. Brackeen is a lesser-known case in the docket for the Supreme Court, but it could overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This would create massive implications for the laws that govern Indigenous sovereignty in the United States. We talk with author and activist Rebecca Nagle about the case of "Baby O" and the Librettis and how their story led to this case. We also investigate the money and interests behind the lawsuit. There's a lot at stake, maybe even the very nature of tribal laws, which were enshrined in the Constitution. The overturning of the ICWA is not just another custody battle.   Like this program? Please show us the love. Click here: http://bit.ly/3LYyl0R and support our non-profit journalism. Thanks! Featuring: Rebecca Nagle, Cherokee writer and advocate, reporter at The Nation, host of This Land   Making Contact Team: Host: Salima Hamirani Staff Producers: Anita Johnson, Salima Hamirani, Amy Gastelum, and Lucy Kang Executive Director: Jina Chung Interim Senior Producer: Jessica Partnow Engineer: Jeff Emtman Music: Johnny Ripper - Sundown Johnny Ripper - sfhk (mental breakdown) Metre- Construct Dieter van der Westen - Heading for Bamako Rocky Marsiano - Whatshappenin Pictures of the Floating World - Waves  Learn More:  Transcript of Supreme Court Arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-376_k536.pdf This Land podcast: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/#all-episodes The Nation: "The Story of Baby O – and the Case That Could Gut Native Sovereignty": https://www.thenation.com/article/society/icwa-supreme-court-libretti-custody-case/  

The SCOTUS is set to release a number of decisions this month. Top of mind for us is the decision on Haaland v. Brackeen, which places Native sovereignty at risk. The case involves a white couple from Texas and Native foster children. The couple is petitioning the court for full custody, despite the possibility of the children moving in with Native family members on Navajo territory. It's a complex case that challenges federal law governing Native adoptions and—surprise, surprise—involves dark money libertarian forces eager to upend Native rights of sovereignty. Resources NARF: FAQ 18: Adoption - A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act The New York Times: Who Can Adopt a Native American Child? A Texas Couple vs. 573 Tribes Oyez: Haaland v. Brackeen Justia: United States v. Holliday :: 70 U.S. 407 (1865) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center Justia: Brackeen v. Haaland, No. 18-11479 (5th Cir. 2021) EdWeek: Native American Children Endured Brutal Treatment in U.S. Boarding Schools, Federal Report Shows The Indigenous Foundation: The U.S. history of Native American Boarding Schools American Civil Liberties Union: ACLU Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Uphold the Indian Child Welfare Act ICT News: The fate of Indian Child Welfare before the Supreme Court UNFTR Resources Episode: Boarding Schools from Hell. Episode: Culture Cancel. -- If you like the pod version of #UNFTR, make sure to check out the video version on YouTube where Max shows his beautiful face! www.youtube.com/@UNFTR Please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Join the Unf*cker-run Facebook group: facebook.com/groups/2051537518349565 Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee® at shop.unftr.com. Subscribe to Unf*cking The Republic® at unftr.com/blog to get the essays these episode are framed around sent to your inbox every week. Check out the UNFTR Pod Love playlist on Spotify: spoti.fi/3yzIlUP. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility. Unf*cking the Republic® is produced by 99 and engineered by Manny Faces Media (mannyfacesmedia.com). Original music is by Tom McGovern (tommcgovern.com). The show is written and hosted by Max and distributed by 99. Podcast art description: Image of the US Constitution ripped in the middle revealing white text on a blue background that says, "Unf*cking the Republic®."Support the show: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/unftrSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hold on to your hats, Kieryn and Eve do a Deep Dive into the legal history of parental rights and what lays the groundwork for how children's rights are treated (or extremely not, as the case may be) in the US. Notes: https://web.archive.org/web/20150908152647/http://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/ https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/legal/parental_rights_tradition/ https://cite.case.law/wis/35/59/ https://casetext.com/case/people-ex-rel-sinclair-v-sinclair https://casetext.com/case/school-dist-no-18-garvin-co-v-thompson-et-al https://cite.case.law/us/262/390/ https://cite.case.law/us/268/510/ https://casetext.com/case/wisconsin-v-yoder https://cite.case.law/us/530/57/#p66 https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1966/strict-scrutiny https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/victory-for-parents-at-the-texas-supreme-court/ http://www.narf.org/nill/documents/icwa/index.html http://www.narf.org/nill/documents/icwa/ch1.html https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/2/20/21131387/indian-child-welfare-act-court-case-foster-care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaland_v._Brackeen https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/ CRHE Bonfire: https://www.bonfire.com/children-have-rights-1/ https://www.bonfire.com/children-have-rights160-1/

The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act, also known as ICWA. The law was passed in 1978 to combat a history of forced family separation in the United States and prevent the removal of Native children from their communities. But now, in Haaland v. Brackeen, ICWA could be completely overturned. In the third episode of Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Rebecca Nagle, a journalist, citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and host of the podcast “This Land.” Smith and Nagle break down the case and its broad implications for laws based on tribes' political relationship with the U.S. government.If you'd like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today on Here's Where It Gets Interesting, Sharon speaks with award-winning journalist Rebecca Nagle. Sharon and Rebecca talk about an important case that SCOTUS will rule on later this spring: Haaland v. Brackeen. Learn about the history of the Indian Child Welfare Act and how the Brackeen case was built. Rebecca uses easy-to-follow language to break down the intricacies of the lawsuit, from its beginnings as an adoption case in family court to its gathering legal momentum and multiple appeals. If ICWA is ruled unconstitutional, what dominos will start to topple? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Indian Child Welfare Act is before the Supreme Court once again, almost a decade after Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Earlier this month, the Court heard oral arguments in the case Haaland v. Brackeen, the legal action about who gets precedence when it comes to adopting Native children. We discuss what the Indian Child Welfare Act does and if struck down, what it could mean for tribal law and Native Americans.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find us on Twitter @1A.

On Wednesday, November 9, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act. Opponents of ICWA say that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, discriminating against non-Native foster parents. Defenders of ICWA say that tribal sovereignty means the relationship of Native people to the US government is political, not racial. Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and Elizabeth Reese of Stanford Law join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments in the case and discuss the future of the Indian Child Welfare Act.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

“A Kitchen Sink Approach to Constitutional Claims” On this week's Amicus, - the case that threatens the Indian Child Welfare Act, but also threatens domino effects on tribal sovereignty and land rights. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Rebecca Nagle, a Cherokee writer, advocate & language learner. Nagle is host of This Land podcast. Season 2 of the podcast was a deep and broad investigation into the background of the case at hand. Maggie Blackhawk also lends her expertise to the discussion, Professor Blackhawk (Find du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe) is professor of law at NYU and an award-winning interdisciplinary scholar and teacher of constitutional law, federal Indian law, and legislation, Together, they delve through a veritable grab bag of constitutional challenges from the plaintiffs in Brackeen v Haaland. Listen up, you're about to learn a lot, we did.  In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to talk about how a Georgia judge overturned that state's abortion ban, President Biden's record and prospects for confirming judges, and death penalty cruelty on the shadow docket again.    Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Want a behind-the-scenes look at how we create the show? Check out Slate's Pocket Collections for research and reading lists, as well as additional insights into how we think about the stories behind the episodes.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“A Kitchen Sink Approach to Constitutional Claims” On this week's Amicus, - the case that threatens the Indian Child Welfare Act, but also threatens domino effects on tribal sovereignty and land rights. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Rebecca Nagle, a Cherokee writer, advocate & language learner. Nagle is host of This Land podcast. Season 2 of the podcast was a deep and broad investigation into the background of the case at hand. Maggie Blackhawk also lends her expertise to the discussion, Professor Blackhawk (Find du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe) is professor of law at NYU and an award-winning interdisciplinary scholar and teacher of constitutional law, federal Indian law, and legislation, Together, they delve through a veritable grab bag of constitutional challenges from the plaintiffs in Brackeen v Haaland. Listen up, you're about to learn a lot, we did.  In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to talk about how a Georgia judge overturned that state's abortion ban, President Biden's record and prospects for confirming judges, and death penalty cruelty on the shadow docket again.    Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Want a behind-the-scenes look at how we create the show? Check out Slate's Pocket Collections for research and reading lists, as well as additional insights into how we think about the stories behind the episodes.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court case Brackeen v. Haaland concerns how adoption placement currently works under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The law prioritizes placing Native children with Native families. But depending on how the court rules, striking down or changing ICWA could affect not only adoption but Indian tribes' entire status as sovereign nations.  Guest: Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese, Stanford law professor and scholar of American Indian tribal law, federal Indian law, and constitutional law. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Amicus—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court case Brackeen v. Haaland concerns how adoption placement currently works under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The law prioritizes placing Native children with Native families. But depending on how the court rules, striking down or changing ICWA could affect not only adoption but Indian tribes' entire status as sovereign nations.  Guest: Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese, Stanford law professor and scholar of American Indian tribal law, federal Indian law, and constitutional law. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Amicus—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Things get visceral as David and Sarah discuss Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court case that may determine who gets to adopt a Native American child. Then, having picked up their dropped jaws, they parse a federal court's ruling that deemed it unconstitutional to prohibit gun ownership based on a history of domestic violence.Plus: Sarah provides some FedSoc gala gossip.Show Notes:-Haaland v. Brackeen-Gabriel Malor, no snark

Sam hosts Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate, to discuss the recent opening arguments that have come in front of the Supreme Court. First, Sam runs through updates on the Democratic victory in Arizona bringing Kari Lake down, the GOP creeping even closer to a House majority, Biden's attempt to renew the student debt repayments, and Iran detaining minors for protest, before watching the right cope with their disappointing showing last week. Mark Joseph Stern then joins as he dives right into the joint affirmative action case being taken against Harvard and UNC, walking through why – despite it supposedly hinging on the 14th Amendment – the majority of the arguments and discussion has been conservative racial aggrievement about policy, with the legal theory coming from the more liberal judges while still appreciating policy impact. Next, Mark parses through Haaland v. Brackeen, the upcoming Supreme Court case that ostensibly deals with states' rights to lay claim to native children living on reservations, and the larger impact of weakening the rights of reservations and their laws in the eyes of the US courts, opening it up to exploitation by both the state and corporation, also drawing a parallel to Georgia's treatment of indigenous peoples in the lead up to the Indian Removal Act. Mark Joseph Stern and Sam also tackle the optimism for the Talevski v. Health and Hospital Corporation case and the future of people's right to have federal protections enforced, before wrapping up with the continued investigation into the Roe leaks. And in the Fun Half: Sam dives into the potential overhaul of GOP leadership as Rep. Andy Biggs' announcement that he will be challenging for Speaker of the House and Rick Scott attempts to hide his disdain for McConnell. Em from Baltimore dives into the success of Michigan's attempt to address gerrymandering and Zack from Michigan dives into Proposal 3 officially codifying abortion into the state constitution. Sam updates us on Russia allegedly launching missiles into Poland, and Rodney from Omaha critiques Sam's sense of humor. Dave Rubin almost goes 0-9 in election predictions, plus, your calls and IMs Check out Mark's work at Slate here: https://slate.com/author/mark-joseph-stern Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Henson Shaving: Go to https://hensonshaving.com/majority  and use code MAJORITY for a free 100-pack of blades!   Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Rebecca Nagle, host of Crooked Media's This Land, joins Melissa, Leah, and Kate to recap the arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen. The case revolves around the Indian Child Welfare Act, which lays out a set of preferences for where Native American children can be placed for foster care and adoption. The challengers, white foster parents trying to adopt Native American children, are claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But as Rebecca explains, tribal sovereignty isn't racial-- it's political.Plus, we take a look at the midterm outcomes and what they mean for the courts.Listen to Season 2 of This Land, all about the  back story of Haaland v. Brackeen.Read Rebecca Nagle's piece in The Atlantic, "The Supreme Court Case That Could Break Native Sovereignty."

As the vote count continues from Tuesday's midterm elections, both parties are eyeing next month's Senate runoff in Georgia, but Arizona and Nevada are also in the spotlight. Democrats can clinch control of the Senate if incumbents win in at least two of those states.The Supreme Court this week heard arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act. Rebecca Nagle, host of Crooked's "This Land" podcast, explains why it could ultimately upend other legal protections for Native Americans. And in headlines: a federal judge in Texas struck down President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, Tropical Storm Nicole barreled through Florida and the Taliban has banned women and girls from using gyms and parks in Afghanistan.Show Notes:The Atlantic: “The Supreme Court Case That Could Break Native American Sovereignty” – https://tinyurl.com/yp5mydsyThis Land | Crooked Media – https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/AP News: 2022 midterms live updates – https://tinyurl.com/2p8u52z2Crooked Coffee is officially here. Our first blend, What A Morning, is available in medium and dark roasts. Wake up with your own bag at crooked.com/coffeeFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/whataday/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday 

How New York election results could tip the balance of power in the House; Voters elect progressive prosecutors across the country, rejecting a tough-on-crime message; The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case that could dismantle Native sovereignty. Get Democracy Now! delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for the Daily Digest: democracynow.org/subscribe

A case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.