<p>Kristi Noem, South Dakota governor and Republican who was once considered one of Donald Trump’s top vice-presidential contenders has been banned from the land of six of the nine Native American tribes in the state after claiming that&nbsp;tribal leaders are benefiting from&nbsp;drug cartels.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Six Native tribes vote to ban the governor</strong></h2>

<p>Last week, two tribes – Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate and Yankton Sioux – in South Dakota voted to ban Noem from their lands joining four others – Oglala, Rosebud, Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Sioux, who had done so earlier this year.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The recent move bans the South Dakota governor from nearly one-fifth of the state territory after she faced criticism for making claims – without evidence – that tribal leaders are “personally benefiting” from drug cartels.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Notably, Noem, who once topped the list of candidates to run for vice president alongside presumptive Republican presidential nominee&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;in the upcoming elections has come under fire after she described killing her family dog and a goat in her book.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-vp-contender-south-dakota-governor-kristi-noem-defends-killing-her-dog-in-new-book-715707">Trump VP contender, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, defends killing her 14-month-old dog</a></strong></p>

<p>However, the governor’s claims about the tribal leaders in her state date back to March, when Noem, while speaking at a forum, accused those leaders who had been critical of her catering to drug cartels.</p>

<p>“We’ve got some tribal leaders that I believe are personally benefiting from the cartels being there, and that’s why they attack me every day,” said the South Dakota governor, as quoted by the Guardian.&nbsp;</p>

<p>She added, “But I’m going to fight for the people who actually live in those situations, who call me and text me every day and say: ‘Please, dear governor, please come help us in Pine Ridge. We are scared.’”</p>

<p>In what can be seen as an attempt to link her past comments about tribal leaders to the United States Joe Biden’s administration and its handling of crime and border security, Noem doubled down on her rhetoric. However, the move seems to have backfired.&nbsp;</p>

<p>On Thursday (May 10), the governor took to X and said, “Tribal leaders should take action to ban the cartels from their lands and accept my offer to help them restore law and order to their communities while protecting their sovereignty.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>She added, “We can only do this through partnerships because the Biden Administration is failing to do their job.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate voted to ban Noem on May 7 and the Yankton Sioux Tribe did so on May 10.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Noem and her book</strong></h2>

<p>The Republican recently cut short her book tour, as per BBC, after a few disastrous interviews, including the one where she suggested that Commander, Biden’s dog, should also have been put down.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kristi-noem-trump-vp-contender-suggests-bidens-dog-should-be-killed-too-718481">Kristi Noem, Trump VP contender, suggests Biden’s dog Commander should be killed too</a></strong></p>

<p>In her book, “No Going Back,” Noem falsely claimed to have met the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un in a passage that the Republican later said she should&nbsp;not have added to the book.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Noem also claimed to have cancelled a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron which his administration has since denied.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em><br />
&nbsp;</p>


Kristi Noem, South Dakota governor and Republican who was once considered one of Donald Trump’s top vice-presidential contenders has been banned from the land of six of the nine Native American tribes in the state after claiming that tribal leaders are benefiting from drug cartels.

Kristi Noem, South Dakota governor and Republican who was once considered one of Donald Trump’s top vice-presidential contenders has been banned from the land of six of the nine Native American tribes in the state after claiming that tribal leaders are benefiting from drug cartels. Six Native tribes vote to ban the governor Last week, two tribes – Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate and Yankton Sioux – in South Dakota voted to ban Noem from their lands joining four others – Oglala, Rosebud, Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Sioux, who had done so earlier this year. The recent move bans the South Dakota governor from nearly one-fifth of the state territory after she faced criticism for making claims – without evidence – that tribal leaders are “personally benefiting” from drug cartels. Notably, Noem, who once topped the list of candidates to run for vice president alongside presumptive Republican presidential nominee Trump in the upcoming elections has come under fire after she described killing her family dog and a goat in her book. Also Read | Trump VP contender, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, defends killing her 14-month-old dog However, the governor’s claims about the tribal leaders in her state date back to March, when Noem, while speaking at a forum, accused those leaders who had been critical of her catering to drug cartels. “We’ve got some tribal leaders that I believe are personally benefiting from the cartels being there, and that’s why they attack me every day,” said the South Dakota governor, as quoted by the Guardian. She added, “But I’m going to fight for the people who actually live in those situations, who call me and text me every day and say: ‘Please, dear governor, please come help us in Pine Ridge. We are scared.’” In what can be seen as an attempt to link her past comments about tribal leaders to the United States Joe Biden’s administration and its handling of crime and border security, Noem doubled down on her rhetoric. However, the move seems to have backfired. On Thursday (May 10), the governor took to X and said, “Tribal leaders should take action to ban the cartels from their lands and accept my offer to help them restore law and order to their communities while protecting their sovereignty.” She added, “We can only do this through partnerships because the Biden Administration is failing to do their job.” The Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate voted to ban Noem on May 7 and the Yankton Sioux Tribe did so on May 10. Noem and her book The Republican recently cut short her book tour, as per BBC, after a few disastrous interviews, including the one where she suggested that Commander, Biden’s dog, should also have been put down. Also Read | Kristi Noem, Trump VP contender, suggests Biden’s dog Commander should be killed too In her book, “No Going Back,” Noem falsely claimed to have met the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un in a passage that the Republican later said she should not have added to the book. Noem also claimed to have cancelled a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron which his administration has since denied. (With inputs from agencies)

Kristi Noem: Six Native tribes vote to ban Trump VP contender from their land

<p>US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families.&nbsp;The court ruled that the law in cases of adoption involving American Indian children does not&nbsp;unlawfully impose federal mandates on areas traditionally regulated by states. &nbsp;</p>

<p>ICWA established federal standards for the removal of Native children from their families and required state courts to inform tribes when an American Indian child is removed from their home outside of a reservation.</p>

<p>The Act has been a significant law for over 45 years, enacted after a congressional investigation revealed that a significant number of Native children had been taken from their tribal homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions without tribal connections.</p>

<h2><strong>Why was the Act challenged?&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The law was challenged by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, along with other non-Native prospective adoptive couples, who argued that ICWA violated the Constitution by racially discriminating and compelling the state to enforce federal mandates.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, in the case before the court, the state of Texas and several families adopting American Indian children challenged the law, arguing that it encroached on state autonomy.</p>

<p>In its Thursday ruling, the court did not decide whether the law unconstitutionally discriminates based on race when it comes to placing children in Native foster and adoptive homes.</p>

<p>The court determined that the challengers, including prospective adoptive parents and the state of Texas, lacked standing to sue as they had not suffered concrete harm, reported NPR media portal.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also Read | </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ex-harvard-medical-school-morgue-manager-indicted-for-stealing-selling-human-remains-604855">Ex-Harvard Medical School morgue manager indicted for stealing, selling human remains</a></p>

<p>In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, "The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing."</p>

<p>Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, criticising the court for disregarding the best interests of the vulnerable children involved and undermining the division of federal and state authority.</p>

<p><strong>Also Read |</strong> <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealands-biggest-meth-bust-with-drug-hidden-in-maple-syrup-bottles-six-arrested-604782">New Zealand's biggest meth bust with drug hidden in maple syrup bottles, six arrested</a></p>

<h2>Native Americans — political not racial group</h2>

<p>The Supreme Court rejected the arguments by the challengers, citing longstanding precedent that classifies Native Americans as a political rather than racial group. This decision is seen as a victory for Native American tribal leaders and advocates who argued that ICWA protects Native children and tribal communities.</p>

<h2><strong>ICWA background</strong>&nbsp;</h2>

<p>The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was enacted by Congress after extensive hearings revealed that public and private agencies had forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of American Indian children from their families.</p>

<p>These children were then placed in institutions or with families unrelated to their tribes. The tribes considered these actions a threat to their existence, prompting Congress to pass ICWA.</p>

<p><strong>Watch | UK MPs publish Partygate report&nbsp;</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-mps-publish-partygate-report-english-latest-news-604768/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The law also implemented a framework for foster and adoption placements and prioritises placement with extended family members, followed by other tribal members, and if neither is available, placement with a different tribal family.</p>

<h2>Biden administration's take&nbsp;</h2>

<p>The Biden administration, like previous ones, defended the law, citing historical precedents that define ICWA's classifications based on tribal connections rather than race. The court agreed with the tribes, leaving the law intact.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families.

US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families. The court ruled that the law in cases of adoption involving American Indian children does not unlawfully impose federal mandates on areas traditionally regulated by states. ICWA established federal standards for the removal of Native children from their families and required state courts to inform tribes when an American Indian child is removed from their home outside of a reservation. The Act has been a significant law for over 45 years, enacted after a congressional investigation revealed that a significant number of Native children had been taken from their tribal homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions without tribal connections. Why was the Act challenged? The law was challenged by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, along with other non-Native prospective adoptive couples, who argued that ICWA violated the Constitution by racially discriminating and compelling the state to enforce federal mandates. However, in the case before the court, the state of Texas and several families adopting American Indian children challenged the law, arguing that it encroached on state autonomy. In its Thursday ruling, the court did not decide whether the law unconstitutionally discriminates based on race when it comes to placing children in Native foster and adoptive homes. The court determined that the challengers, including prospective adoptive parents and the state of Texas, lacked standing to sue as they had not suffered concrete harm, reported NPR media portal. Also Read | Ex-Harvard Medical School morgue manager indicted for stealing, selling human remains In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, "The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing." Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, criticising the court for disregarding the best interests of the vulnerable children involved and undermining the division of federal and state authority. Also Read | New Zealand's biggest meth bust with drug hidden in maple syrup bottles, six arrested Native Americans — political not racial group The Supreme Court rejected the arguments by the challengers, citing longstanding precedent that classifies Native Americans as a political rather than racial group. This decision is seen as a victory for Native American tribal leaders and advocates who argued that ICWA protects Native children and tribal communities. ICWA background The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was enacted by Congress after extensive hearings revealed that public and private agencies had forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of American Indian children from their families. These children were then placed in institutions or with families unrelated to their tribes. The tribes considered these actions a threat to their existence, prompting Congress to pass ICWA. Watch | UK MPs publish Partygate report × The law also implemented a framework for foster and adoption placements and prioritises placement with extended family members, followed by other tribal members, and if neither is available, placement with a different tribal family. Biden administration's take The Biden administration, like previous ones, defended the law, citing historical precedents that define ICWA's classifications based on tribal connections rather than race. The court agreed with the tribes, leaving the law intact. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

US Supreme Court upholds law ensuring protections to Native American children in adoption

Life on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota can be harsh but women of the Lakota tribe are taking their lives and their future into their own hands. Watch report.

Plight of indigenous people in Dakota: Native women living in poor conditions