Supreme Court Affirms ICWA

[MUSIC] Sorry. [MUSIC] All my relations. Hello relatives. Welcome back to another episode of all my relations. Today is a very special day and we are interrupting our regular show schedule to celebrate and acknowledge that we have big, big, huge news. Maybe you've already heard, but this morning, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold and affirm the Indian child welfare act. Yay! It's a really big deal. So I asked my good friend, Sidelta Asoy, who is currently in DC, to come on the show and talk about why this is such a big deal. Hi Sidelta. Hello, all my relations. Before we go any further, I just want to read you a little bit of Sidelta's bio. Sidelta is Mandan Hadazza, a Rikaron Cherokee, and a senior program and policy analyst and specialist at the National Education Association, and was recently appointed by the Biden administration to the National Advisory Council Indian Affairs. So what an honor it is to have Sidelta here to talk with us. Let's just start by explaining why this is such a big win. So before we talk about that, let's talk about what Iqwa is. The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed by Congress in 1978, and it sets federal requirements that apply to state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who is a member of or eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe. And in passing Iqwa, Congress moved to protect the best interest of Indian children, promote the stability and security of Indian families. And one of the most important parts here is the preferences do not mean that the child has to be placed in native home, but the process gives recognition and does recognize tribal sovereignty and deferes to its authority, which is one of the main parts of this case that was heard last spring, I guess, or a couple months ago. Right. Right. That this case is also, while it's about the protection of native children, it's very much about upholding tribal sovereignty. Yeah, this case is about tribal sovereignty. And today, the Supreme Court affirmed the 1978 legislation, which gives preference to Native Americans in the adoption process and does not discriminate on the basis of race. The important thing to understand here is that Iqwa draws classifications based not on race, but on connections to tribal groups. Under the Constitution, those tribal groups are separate sovereign nations. So essentially, we native people are a political group. We are card carrying tribal citizens, which is why the court rejects all of the challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act and Justin Barrett wrote, quote, "some on the merits and others for lack of standing." Yeah. And I think it's important to acknowledge it prior to Iqwa, the Association of American Indian Affairs reported that 25 to 35 percent of all Native children had been separated from their families and placed in the foster homes, adopted homes, or institutions that were non-native. And I think that the other part I want to point out is 1978 is not ancient history. I know for a lot of younger people, anything before 2000 is like old and ancient, but I'm not going to age myself too much, but I was born right around this time. I'm not that old. So, you know, this is something that's really important today. And then I think it's important that even four decades after Iqwa was enacted, Native children are still overrepresented in the foster care system at a rate of 2.7 times greater than the general population. So, I think that's a very important point as we continue this conversation. Right. Because during the assimilationist era of the 1800s, what is now known as the United States as a federal policy took Native people from their homes and placed us in government run boarding schools that were dedicated to assimilating Native people into dominant American culture. And in very brutal and violent ways, General Pratt, in fact, the architect of these schools, described the policy to "kill the Indian in him and save the man." He also said that, quote, "transfer the savage born infant to the surroundings of the civilization and he will grow to possess a civilized language and habit." And that kind of thinking and policy really continued into the 1900s and the 1950s, the next wave of anti-Native sentiments came to fruition with federal policies that explicitly aimed to terminate the inherent sovereignty and political rights in thereby the identities of tribal nations with the termination era, which my grandmother, you know, personally fought against, which many of our relatives fought against, right, so that we could maintain our nationhood. And then with the help of the church and white run adoption agencies, the federal government and what is now known as the Indian adoption project between the years of 1958 and 1976, encouraged the removal of Native children from their families and placed them in non-Native families. So according to a 1976 report by the Association on American Indian Affairs, between 1941 and 1967, as many as one in three Native children were taken from their families. And the government did this because it was cheaper, right? The cost of government run boarding schools and sending one kid was about $100,000 per child. So, you know, taking care of the Indian problem as the federal government would have said is we have to assimilate, we have to have less, it was extinction-based policies. And it's unbelievable to me that still to this day, we are still fighting assimilation policies, right? Yeah, I mean, I'd like to say that we've come a long way from that assimilation era, but, you know, I don't think we have because as today's ruling notes, we're still having to have these conversations and the Supreme Court is still ruling on our tribal sovereignty. It's really scary. You know, there's this great article on the Atlantic, these two writers point out that, quote, "Congress today has the substantial and sweeping powers over Native nations and native people, including the authority to abolish tribes and tribal reservations and to expand or restrict tribal authority." And these powers come from a series of Supreme Court decisions in the late 1800s and early 1900s that were based on racist views about American Indians that Congress needed virtually unlimited authority over American Indians affairs because natives were not equipped to govern themselves. The court reasons that Native's, quote, "weakness and helplessness" gave the federal government broad domain over them. Later, cases pointed that Native's condition to tutelage or dependency. So we are still this nation within a nation, right? Right. Or as some of the court cases have said, a domestic dependent nation, and even today, as this points out, we're still fighting assimilation era policies that are threats to our sovereignty. So I think we have to really think about the power that Congress has, the power we have to elect people to Congress, the Supreme Court, and all of that and how that plays into our indigenous nation. Right. Podas today made a comment. He said, "The Indian Child, well, for acts, safeguards that, which is most precious to all of us, are children." I appreciate that he went on to note our nation's painful history looms large over today's decision, and the not-so-distant past Native children were stolen from the arms of people who loved them. They were sent to boarding schools to be raised by non-Indian families, all with the aim of erasing who they are as Native people and tribal citizens. These were acts of unspeakable cruelty that affected generations of Native children and threatened the very survival of tribal nations. The Indian Child, well, for acts, it was our nation's promise never again. And I appreciate that. No, I do. I really appreciate that. I mean, it's a step in the right direction, right? Indeed. You know, that's what this conversation is about, and while it's been wrapped up in tribal sovereignty, really for capitalist gain for oil, right? Like this case is about trying to remove Indian authority over land. But let's not talk about that. Let's talk about the safety and welfare of our indigenous children. And for many of us, this is incredibly close to home. Even Secretary Holland in her statement today said, "The United States has a moral obligation to protect Indian children and families and safeguard the future of Indian tribes." And I know, you know, for me, on a personal level, I have many relatives that were adopted out of our communities. And many relatives who have done work to try to come home. But there's so many people, you know, during that era, the one in three era that were adopted out, that, you know, we still to this day experience the pain of what it feels like to have your family fractioned and shifted forever. And I know you too, so that I'll have personal experiences with this. Yeah, we were watching, I was watching this case very closely. I have two nephews that were both adopted through Iqua. My mom is three affiliated. My dad is Cherokee. And what's beautiful about the story is that we have one child who was adopted through the Cherokee Nation and Iqua. And the other one was adopted through the three affiliated tribes and Iqua. They were the vehicles used to adopt both of them. And, you know, I remember my grandma used to live with us. And at one point, I had some aunties visiting and they were in the house and it was this four generations under our roof. together and we were laughing and talking and sharing. And I think that's what it was about. I remember looking at them thinking, this is what it's all about. During the pandemic, my dad was able to teach one of them. Cherokee, my mom was teaching the other one, Mandan, a Rickerau Hadoz. She was teaching them and it was beautiful because I know that this is going to continue to be attacked. It will continue to face threats. There was one 10 years ago. And I think this one was so scary because I remember thinking, what if something had happened 10 years ago and this had been overturned? Would those boys be our life? I cannot imagine our world without them. I can't imagine life without them. And you know this and anyone who spent more than five minutes with me. If I like you, I've probably shown you pictures. I've shown people on the metro pictures. I'm like, look at these guys are so cute. I talk about them all the time. But it's just, they've taught us so much too. And I worry about what happens to other kids like them in the future if it gets overturned. And what does that mean for them and how will they be able to connect? Because these boys are loved by so many. They have so many aunties, grandma's, grandpa's. It's a beautiful thing to see. And I think that's what we have to remember at the end of the day that these are kids, these are families. And it really is in the best interest for them to be with people from their community. Yeah, to have the opportunity to develop those kinship systems, right? And to know what it means to belong to a place-based identity. And really, it was meant to provide protections against the systemic bias and to reduce the flow of native children into environments which aim to displace and assimilate them into the dominant Western culture. Native children belong in their homelands, right? Yeah, they do. They belong in those kinship systems. So, you know. And when they're not in them, they can tell and they know. Exactly. You know, but today is a big day, right? The court agreed with tribes leaving the law intact. And for Indian country, I know for me, I felt very nervous about this case, you know, because I live on tribal land, because I have, I have built my life around tribal sovereignty. Many of us have. And so, what does it mean when our tribal sovereignty is constantly underattacked? So, for me, I took a deep breath today. And I wanted to come on air and share that joy with our relatives, you know. And just say, you know, take another deep breath as the aunties would stay to me in standing rock, you know, like, don't let your tits fall because there's going to be more work to do. [LAUGHTER] They'll come a time where we have to continue to pick our tits up and keep fighting. [LAUGHTER] So, you know, I'm not planning on getting drippy over here any time soon. But for today, you know, I could sigh this little sigh of relief. And it feels good. Yes. It feels really good. It does. And I think it's okay to acknowledge it and to just enjoy today and to celebrate today, because we will have to keep fighting. Oh. [LAUGHTER] Thank you to the AMR team, Jonathan Stein, William McGigan, and Lindsay Hightower, Big Teague Reciteid, and Wato, to our guest, Siddeltta Asui, sending our love out to Adrian who could not join us today, since she's on vacation with her family. But I know she is equally rejoicing. We chatted with her about this on a previous episode, Native Children, Belong and Native Homes, along with Kendra Potter and Brooke Swainey. So feel free to check that out if you want to take a deeper dive on this subject. Reminder, you can always support the podcast on Patreon or follow us on Instagram at AMR Podcast. And also, you know, my book, "Project 5, 6, 2, Changing the Way We See Native America" is now available, and it's now a New York Times Best seller. So, hey, excited about that. We really appreciate you being on this journey with us relatives. Take a deep breath. Say some blessings and some prayers for all our Native children who are going to get to stay in Native homes as a result of this. It's a big win for Indian Country, and I'm really glad that y'all tune in to celebrate with us. So have a good day. A whole.