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;

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.

<h2>Why was the Act challenged?&nbsp;</h2>

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;

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.&nbsp;

Also Read | <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>

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 | <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>

<h2>Native Americans — political not racial group</h2>

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.

<h2>ICWA background&nbsp;</h2>

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&nbsp;

<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>

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.

<h2>Biden administration's take&nbsp;</h2>

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.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<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>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

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

Using a new method of analysing family lineages with DNA fragments from long-dead people, a group of scientists have figured out that a South Dakotan man was indeed the grandson of the 19th-century Native American leader Sitting Bull.<o:p></o:p>

Researchers took a strand of hair from which was being preserved at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. Through this hair, they were able to establish a familial relationship between the famed Sitting Bull and Ernie LaPoint of South Dakota. <o:p></o:p>

The 73-year-old from Lead, South Dakota, has expressed relief after this revelation. He says this has come as a piece of good news as several people had been questioning his relationship with his ancestors for years.

<o:p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/archeologists-make-shocking-revelations-after-dna-analysis-of-mummies-in-china-424720">Archeologists make shocking revelations after DNA analysis of mummies in China</a></o:p>

"I feel this DNA research is another way of identifying my lineal relationship to my great-grandfather," said LaPointe. "People have been questioning our relationship to our ancestor as long as I can remember. These people are just a pain in the place you sit - and will probably doubt these findings, also."<o:p></o:p>

This study is not only a milestone for LaPointe but is also a scientific marvel as this was the first time that a familial relationship has been established between a living man and a historical figure with the help of DNA of a long-dead person.

<o:p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/egyptian-mummies-to-pass-through-cairo-in-ancient-rulers-parade-375153">Egyptian mummies to pass through Cairo in ancient rulers' parade</a></o:p>

The new method was developed by scientists led by Eske Willerslev, director of the Lundbeck Foundation GeoGenetics Centre at the University of Cambridge. It had taken the researchers 14 years to develop this new method of extracting usable DNA from hair.<o:p></o:p>

When Willerslev read about LaPointe handing over hair of Sitting Bull to Smithsonian, he reached out to him to conduct this research. "LaPointe asked me to extract DNA from it and compare it to his DNA to establish relationship," said Willerslev, senior author of the research published in the Science Advances. "I got very little hair and there was very limited DNA in it. It took us a long time developing a method that, based on limited ancient DNA, can by compared to that of living people across multiple generations."<o:p></o:p>

Sitting Bull, whose Lakota name was Tatanka-Iyotanka, was known for leading Native American warrior who then wiped out federal troops of George Custer at the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn.<o:p></o:p>

Using a new method of analysing family lineages with DNA fragments from long-dead people, a group of scientists have figured out that a South Dakotan man was indeed the grandson of the 19th-century Native American leader Sitting Bull.

Using a new method of analysing family lineages with DNA fragments from long-dead people, a group of scientists have figured out that a South Dakotan man was indeed the grandson of the 19th-century Native American leader Sitting Bull. Researchers took a strand of hair from which was being preserved at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. Through this hair, they were able to establish a familial relationship between the famed Sitting Bull and Ernie LaPoint of South Dakota. The 73-year-old from Lead, South Dakota, has expressed relief after this revelation. He says this has come as a piece of good news as several people had been questioning his relationship with his ancestors for years. Also read | Archeologists make shocking revelations after DNA analysis of mummies in China "I feel this DNA research is another way of identifying my lineal relationship to my great-grandfather," said LaPointe. "People have been questioning our relationship to our ancestor as long as I can remember. These people are just a pain in the place you sit - and will probably doubt these findings, also." This study is not only a milestone for LaPointe but is also a scientific marvel as this was the first time that a familial relationship has been established between a living man and a historical figure with the help of DNA of a long-dead person. Also read | Egyptian mummies to pass through Cairo in ancient rulers' parade The new method was developed by scientists led by Eske Willerslev, director of the Lundbeck Foundation GeoGenetics Centre at the University of Cambridge. It had taken the researchers 14 years to develop this new method of extracting usable DNA from hair. When Willerslev read about LaPointe handing over hair of Sitting Bull to Smithsonian, he reached out to him to conduct this research. "LaPointe asked me to extract DNA from it and compare it to his DNA to establish relationship," said Willerslev, senior author of the research published in the Science Advances. "I got very little hair and there was very limited DNA in it. It took us a long time developing a method that, based on limited ancient DNA, can by compared to that of living people across multiple generations." Sitting Bull, whose Lakota name was Tatanka-Iyotanka, was known for leading Native American warrior who then wiped out federal troops of George Custer at the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn.

DNA testing proves South Dakota man is grandson of famed Native American Sitting Bull

Law enforcement with armored vehicles and bulldozers entered a North Dakota campsite on Thursday, clearing out dozens of people who had refused to vacate the oil pipeline protest. 
 
State officials said they arrested at least 39 people, and had officially cleared the camp of demonstrators by mid-afternoon, making way for a cleanup operation.&nbsp; 
 
Native Americans and supporters camped out for&nbsp;nearly a year near the Dakota Access pipeline route, physically blocking construction. Many of those who had stayed&nbsp;through the winter left&nbsp;peacefully on Wednesday, facing an afternoon evacuation deadline set by North Dakota state authorities.&nbsp; 
 
But officials said some campers&nbsp;had refused to leave, and had remained overnight.&nbsp; 
 
Law enforcement entered the camp heavily armed, with bulldozers clearing paths Thursday morning. Police officers could be seen checking white&nbsp;teepees for holdouts, and then spray-painting an X on those that were clear.&nbsp; 
 
During warmer months, the camp had at times swelled to thousands of demonstrators, bringing the opposition campaign international attention.&nbsp; 
 
State officials and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe -- which says the pipeline threatens the Missouri River and the Lake Oahe reservoir,&nbsp;a key drinking water source --&nbsp;had asked campers to leave in order to clean up the site before snow melts.&nbsp; 
 
Otherwise, man-made pollutants from the campsite could contaminate the river, they say, since it was located on a flood plain and warming spring&nbsp;temperatures could&nbsp;cause runoff as snow melts.&nbsp; 
 
- &#39;Beautiful North Dakota prairie&#39; - 
 
&quot;This was beautiful North&nbsp;Dakota prairie, in a sensitive watershed area,&quot; said North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.&nbsp; 
 
The Republican said that driving and ruts, as well as accumulated garbage, have substantially damaged the soil. Batteries from hundreds of&nbsp;abandoned cars that may have frozen over the winter&nbsp;could be leaking, posing an additional contamination threat, he said.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
The US Army Corps of Engineers, which controls the federal land on which the protesters camped, said it will spend between $800,000 and $1.2 million to clean up the area.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;We are asking for cooperation from the protesters,&quot; Republican North Dakota Senator John Hoeven said Wednesday. &quot;We&#39;ve got a limited amount of time.&quot; 
 
The camp first sprung up in April when Native Americans and their supporters began rallying against the Dakota Access pipeline, which has an underground route that intersects the Missouri River.&nbsp; 
 
Late last year, president Barack Obama&#39;s administration halted the project and called for a full environmental impact review. But President Donald Trump signed an executive order to revive the pipeline, and a&nbsp;final permit was issued earlier this month.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
Construction resumed almost immediately, and the pipeline is expected to be operational in a matter of months.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
Its operator, Energy Transfer Partners,&nbsp;insists the pipeline is safe, with high-tech systems in place to prevent environmental catastrophe.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
But the Standing Rock Sioux say a more comprehensive environmental review should have been conducted before the federal government issued permits, and the tribe should have been consulted more thoroughly about the potential destruction of nearby sacred lands. &nbsp;

(AFP)

State officials said they arrested at least 39 people, and had officially cleared the camp of demonstrators by mid-afternoon

Law enforcement with armored vehicles and bulldozers entered a North Dakota campsite on Thursday, clearing out dozens of people who had refused to vacate the oil pipeline protest. State officials said they arrested at least 39 people, and had officially cleared the camp of demonstrators by mid-afternoon, making way for a cleanup operation. Native Americans and supporters camped out for nearly a year near the Dakota Access pipeline route, physically blocking construction. Many of those who had stayed through the winter left peacefully on Wednesday, facing an afternoon evacuation deadline set by North Dakota state authorities. But officials said some campers had refused to leave, and had remained overnight. Law enforcement entered the camp heavily armed, with bulldozers clearing paths Thursday morning. Police officers could be seen checking white teepees for holdouts, and then spray-painting an X on those that were clear. During warmer months, the camp had at times swelled to thousands of demonstrators, bringing the opposition campaign international attention. State officials and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe -- which says the pipeline threatens the Missouri River and the Lake Oahe reservoir, a key drinking water source -- had asked campers to leave in order to clean up the site before snow melts. Otherwise, man-made pollutants from the campsite could contaminate the river, they say, since it was located on a flood plain and warming spring temperatures could cause runoff as snow melts. - 'Beautiful North Dakota prairie' - "This was beautiful North Dakota prairie, in a sensitive watershed area," said North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum. The Republican said that driving and ruts, as well as accumulated garbage, have substantially damaged the soil. Batteries from hundreds of abandoned cars that may have frozen over the winter could be leaking, posing an additional contamination threat, he said. The US Army Corps of Engineers, which controls the federal land on which the protesters camped, said it will spend between $800,000 and $1.2 million to clean up the area. "We are asking for cooperation from the protesters," Republican North Dakota Senator John Hoeven said Wednesday. "We've got a limited amount of time." The camp first sprung up in April when Native Americans and their supporters began rallying against the Dakota Access pipeline, which has an underground route that intersects the Missouri River. Late last year, president Barack Obama's administration halted the project and called for a full environmental impact review. But President Donald Trump signed an executive order to revive the pipeline, and a final permit was issued earlier this month. Construction resumed almost immediately, and the pipeline is expected to be operational in a matter of months. Its operator, Energy Transfer Partners, insists the pipeline is safe, with high-tech systems in place to prevent environmental catastrophe. But the Standing Rock Sioux say a more comprehensive environmental review should have been conducted before the federal government issued permits, and the tribe should have been consulted more thoroughly about the potential destruction of nearby sacred lands. (AFP)

North Dakota: Authorities clear pipeline protest camp