<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

<p><br />
Thousands of people&nbsp;&quot;checked in&quot; at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation on Facebook to support the activists fighting construction of an oil pipeline in North Dakota on Monday.</p>

<p>On Monday more than 4,600 people used the location tagging feature on the social media site to confuse police who they believe are using the social network to track the protesters. The Reservation is near the site of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline. The Facebook &quot;check in&quot; boosted the number of people actually present.</p>

<p>The local sheriff&#39;s department refused they were using social media to locate the demonstrators in a Facebook post.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="218" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FMortonCountySD%2Fposts%2F347981728887505&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></p>

<p>The pipeline threatens sacred sites and local water supplies, say the Sioux Tribe and other objectors. They suggest that transporting oil by road or rail would be safer and more cost-effective. The 1,172-mile (1,885-km) pipeline is being built by a group of companies led by Energy Transfer Partners LP, Reuters reports.</p>

<p>Most of the check-ins at the site were made remotely. The cell phone reception is actually poor at the protest camp in rural southwestern North Dakota. People walk up a small mound dubbed &quot;Facebook Hill&quot; to get a signal.</p>

<p>Mekasi Camp Horinek, a protest leader from Bold Oklahoma, an environmental advocacy group, welcomed the move.</p>

<p>&quot;It is a lot of people showing their support for Standing Rock,&quot; Horinek said on Monday by telephone from North Dakota, reported Reuters. &quot;They can&#39;t be with us here physically, but they are with us in spirit and prayer.&quot;</p>

<p>The police have arrested more than 400 protesters in demonstrations against the pipeline since Agust 10. The movement has attracted support from celebrities as Mark Ruffalo, Shailene Woodley, and Chris Hemsworth. Horinek was among the 142 protesters arrested by police last week at an encampment set up on private land, Reuters said.</p>

<p>There were also demonstrations at banks linked to the pipeline&#39;s financing on Monday.</p>

<p>Environmental activists and protesters have been carrying out protests since April, which even prompted the US government to halt construction of the pipeline in September. &nbsp;</p>

<p>(With inputs from Reuters)</p>


People believe the police are using the social media to keep a track on the protesters' movements

Thousands of people "checked in" at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation on Facebook to support the activists fighting construction of an oil pipeline in North Dakota on Monday. On Monday more than 4,600 people used the location tagging feature on the social media site to confuse police who they believe are using the social network to track the protesters. The Reservation is near the site of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline. The Facebook "check in" boosted the number of people actually present. The local sheriff's department refused they were using social media to locate the demonstrators in a Facebook post. The pipeline threatens sacred sites and local water supplies, say the Sioux Tribe and other objectors. They suggest that transporting oil by road or rail would be safer and more cost-effective. The 1,172-mile (1,885-km) pipeline is being built by a group of companies led by Energy Transfer Partners LP, Reuters reports. Most of the check-ins at the site were made remotely. The cell phone reception is actually poor at the protest camp in rural southwestern North Dakota. People walk up a small mound dubbed "Facebook Hill" to get a signal. Mekasi Camp Horinek, a protest leader from Bold Oklahoma, an environmental advocacy group, welcomed the move. "It is a lot of people showing their support for Standing Rock," Horinek said on Monday by telephone from North Dakota, reported Reuters. "They can't be with us here physically, but they are with us in spirit and prayer." The police have arrested more than 400 protesters in demonstrations against the pipeline since Agust 10. The movement has attracted support from celebrities as Mark Ruffalo, Shailene Woodley, and Chris Hemsworth. Horinek was among the 142 protesters arrested by police last week at an encampment set up on private land, Reuters said. There were also demonstrations at banks linked to the pipeline's financing on Monday. Environmental activists and protesters have been carrying out protests since April, which even prompted the US government to halt construction of the pipeline in September. (With inputs from Reuters)

North Dakota pipeline: Facebook users 'check in' to support protests

native-americans-protest

Native Americans Protest, News on Native Americans Protest, stories on Native Americans Protest, articles on Native Americans Protest, Native Americans Protest stories at Wion, Native Americans Protest news, Native Americans Protest latest news

native americans-protest

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

North Dakota pipeline: Facebook users 'check in' to support protests