Federal Court Updates
Oklahoma v. Castro- Huerta (SCOTUS) . Argued late April 2022; Decided June 29, 2022. Issue: Whether the General Crimes Act prohibits Oklahoma’s prosecution of non-Indians who commit crimes against Indian victims in Indian country. Holding: the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. The Court found that Indian country is not separate from state territory and states have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed on Indian land unless preempted, and this situation was not preempted, granting states jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non- Indians against Indians in Indian country. Dissent: Justices Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan Topic: Criminal Jurisdiction Brackeen v. Haaland (SCOTUS) . Argued November 9, 2022; Expecting a decision in Spring or early Summer 2023. Issue: (1) whether ICWA’s placement preferences, favoring placing Indian children with Indian adoptive families, discriminates on the basis of race in violation of the 14 th amendment; and (2) whether ICWA’s placement preferences exceeded Congress’ Article I authority by becoming involved in the child placement process and commandeering state courts and agencies to carry out a federal child placement program. Plenary Power : Justices Gorsuch and Kagan did not seem to see an issue with Congress’ plenary power to regulate Indian affairs, as it is a relatively broad power and is necessary for other laws intended to benefit Indians. Justice Alito, however, worried about that acceptance of this would lead to unlimited Congressional plenary power. Equal Protection : Justices Gorsuch and Kagan did not see a Constitutional issue with equal protection laws because the tribes are considered separate sovereigns, classified by their political distinction, rather than the racial distinction. Justice Kavanaugh seemed divided between recognizing Indians by their race or by their longstanding history with the United States States’ Rights Argument: Justices Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Jackson did not seem worried about the involvement of ICWA in state family courts, which use their own “best interests of the child” standard, nor was the anticommandeering doctrine and issue because it was not intended as a means to coopt state resources. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett seemed to disagree with both sentiments. Justice Roberts posed a hypothetical to the representatives for the tribes, but it is unclear if he was convinced by the answer. Standing: Both Justices Gorsuch and Thomas raised questions pertaining to the individual plaintiffs and Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of America, et al. (Case No. 1:22-cv-00068)— Maverick Gaming LLC, a Washington-based company that owns and operates 19 card rooms within the State of Washington, filed suit against the United States, the Department of Interior, Sec. Haaland, and Asst. Sec. Bryan Newland, and a number of Washington state officials, for allowing tribes to engage in Class III gaming, including sports betting, while prohibiting commercial, non-Indian entities from participating in such gaming. To date, the State of Washington has approved gaming compacts with 29 Indian Tribes, with 16 of those compacts being amended and approved to permit sports betting. Commercial entities, such as Maverick, are barred under Washington criminal law from offering sports betting. Declaring the Tribes to have a “monopoly over most forms of casino-style gaming,” Maverick alleges that such monopoly is inconsistent with IGRA and federal criminal statutes, as well as in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by “irrationally and impermissibly discrimination on the basis of race and the state’s right to sue. Topic: Family Law/ICWA
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs