TRANSCRIPT
Karen: They make a decision on that ICWA case yet?
Belinda: Icwhat?
Text on Sreen: (Haaland v. Brackeen)
Sarah: It’s an Act some casino companies are trying to overturn. And no, the decision hasn’t come out yet.
Karen: Wait ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act is about casinos? I thought it was about tribal sovereinty and like designed to protect Native kids from being like kidnapped or whatever.
Sarah: It is. But overturning it is about casinos. It’s also about eroding the rights of tribal nations to govern themselves.
Belinda: Hold on. Gambling is clearly NOT Christian and I just read on Google—the plaintiffs are foster parents who are Christian, and I don't understand why they shouldn’t be able to adopt the kids they fostered just because the kids are Native and they're white. That sounds to me like racial discrimination.
Sarah: That’s the argument their lawyers are trying to make (lawyers who also represent, according to their own webpage, some of the largest gaming and casino companies in the world). If they can convince the Supreme Court that Native Americans are not a political entity, but rather a racial group, they could make a case that all kinds of laws applying to tribal nations are unconstitutional.
Karen: Ohhhhh so like if they decide ICWA is racial discrimination, then what’s to stop them from saying other things are? Like tribal police and lands and hunting permits.
Belinda: And casinos.
Sarah: Yeah. It’s the same argument that Gibson and Dunn made in Washington State where they represented Maverick Gaming and they tried to argue that allowing sports betting in tribal casinos but not in other casinos was racial discrimination.
Belinda: Is that why Gibson Dunn’s representing the family pro bono?
Sarah: Yeah. They’re not going to make money from THIS case, but if ICWA gets overturned, it opens up a pandora’s box of future litigation, and they could stand to gain millions from their big gaming clients who are super invested in eroding tribal sovereignty.
Karen: Is there any way a conservative majority court could NOT overturn ICWA while maintaining the impression they’re still conservative? Not that the Supreme Court is political… just asking.
Sarah: Oh totally. They could just say the plaintiffs have no standing - basically that because they got to adopt the kids in question, there’s no harm done. And even if there was harm, overturning ICWA wouldn’t repair it.
Belinda: Is there anything we can do?
Sarah: Telling your legislators that ICWA matters to you is a good start. Some states are also passing protections that would keep Native kids safe even if ICWA WERE overturned. You can also share what you know and debunk this myth that this case is just about a family wanting to adopt. It’s not. It’s about big corporations with a LOT of money pushing THEIR interests at the expense of tribal sovereignty and Native Americans’ rights.
