+-L RULING EARLIER THIS WEEK UPHELD THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT, A 1978 LAW DESIGNED TO KEEP NATIVE FAMILIES TOGETHER.

ONE OF THE CASES INVOLVED A CUSTODY FIGHT HERE IN MINNESOTA BETWEEN NON-NATIVE FOSTER PARENTS AND THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER OF A MEMBER OF THE WHITE EARTH BAND OF OJIBWE.

HERE WITH MORE ON THE DECISION AND ITS IMPORTANCE, ANGELIQUE EAGLEWOMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN LAW AND SOVEREIGNTY INSTITUTE AT MITCHELL HAMLINE SCHOOL OF LAW IN ST. PAUL.

WELCOME, PROFESSOR.

IT'S GOOD TO ESEE YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE WITH YOU BOTH.

AND TO CELEBRATE THIS GREAT VICTORY.

7-2 TO IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT.

>> Cathy: SMASKT, YOU AS A MAT OF FACT, YOU AND I TALKED ON MPR, EXPERTS THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OVERTURNED.

>> THEY WERE VERY WORRY SOME AS THEY WERE COMING UP.

THANKFULLY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FELL RIGHT IN LINE WITH FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF TRIBAL NATION, U.S.

RELATIONSHIPS, AND WE HAVE A 7- HAVE A 7- HAVE A 7- HAVE A 7- 2 AND WE HAVE A 7-2 ON SOLID GROUND.

>> Eric: WHY IS THIS NEEDED?

>> SO THERE'S A LONG HISTORY OF TARGETING NATIVE AMERICAN FAMILIES AND ESPECIALLY OUR CHILDREN.

THERE WAS A WHOLE POLICY AROUND THE INDIAN BOARDING SCHOOL ERA, TAKING CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES IN THE 1800S FOR CIVILIZATION TRAINING.

FOUR GENERATIONS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THAT.

WE'RE TILL RECOVERING.

AND THEN IN THE 1950s AND 19650s, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY FUNDED AN INDIAN ADOPTION PROJECT WITH STATE SOCIAL WORKERS.

WHO DETERMINED THAT FAMILIES HAD TO LITTLE OF AN NICK OR THEIR CHILDREN WERE VISITING A RELATIVE FOR TOO LONG AND SO THAT WAS NEGLECT OR ABANDONMENT AND THEY WOULD TAKE THE CHILDREN AND THEY WOULD ADOPT THEM OUT.

AND IT WAS HEART-BREAKING FOR GENERATIONS.

TRIBAL LEADERS RESPONDED TO THIS BY LOBBYING GRESES AND HAD THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT AS A RESULT IN 1978.

BUT SINCE THE ACT HAS BEEN PASSED, WE'VE SEEN CHALLENGE AFTER CHALLENGE AFTER CHALLENGE.

AND SO IT'S NOT WELL DISOODZ DISOODZ WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT TRIBAL COMMUNITIES NEED OUR CHILDREN.

SO THAT WE CONTINUE TO EXIST.

BUT OFTEN WE DO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE WELL FUNDED AND ANTI--TRIBAL THAT SEEK TO STEP IN AND CHALLENGE THE LAW.

>> Cathy: HAS THE LAW, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY KIDS IN THE MINNESOTA FOSTER SYSTEM WHO ARE NATIVE, IS THE LAW HELPING THOSE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW?

>> YES, IT IS HELPING THEM.

SO WHAT THE LAW DOES IS IT SAYS, IF THE CHILD IS IN THE STATE COURT SYSTEM, THEN THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT COMES INTO PLAY.

AND SAYS, STATE COURT, YOU MUST NOTIFY THE CHILD'S TRIBE AND THEIR PARENTS.

AND THEN THE TRIPE AND THE PARENTS COME IN, AND THEY CAN GIVE PLACEMENT PREFERENCES.

ALSO, THE TRIBE CAN COME IN AND REQUEST THAT THE WHOLE CASE BE TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE TRIBAL COURT.

IF IT'S NOT, THEN IT STAYS IN THE STATE COURT AND THE TATE COURT IS THEN TO FOLLOW THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT AND THE PLACEMENT PREFERENCES.

HERE IN MINNESOTA, TRIBAL ATTORNEYS AND LEGISLATORS HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH CONCERNED AND HAVE PASSED THE MINNESOTA INDIAN FAMILY PRESERVATION ACT.

AND THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR DECADES.

IT'S RECENTLY BEEN AMENDED WITH MUCH STRONGER LANGUAGE.

AND IT HAS MORE DETAIL.

SO IT IS A REAL POSITIVE TO SEE, AND ABOUT TEN STATES HAVE SUCH COMPANION LEGISLATION.

>> Eric: IS THIS GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION?

IT'S OFTEN HIT AND MISS BROADLY SPEAKING.

HAS IT BEEN PRETTY GOOD COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TWIEBL GOVERNMENTS AND THE STATE?

>> STLIEWL.

WE HAVE A VERY STRONG RELATIONSHIP I WOULD SAY WITH THE GOVERNOR AND THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND THEY'VE REALLY PRIORITIZED CONSULTATION.

AND MINNESOTA IS ONE OF THE VERY FERN STATES THAT HAS IS A AN ACTUAL LAW ON THE BOOKS FOR TWIEBL CONSULTATION.

AND SO JUST BEING AT THE TABLE, BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THE CONVERSATION, THAT REALLY DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

WE ARE PERMANENT NEIGHBORS.

THE TRIBES AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE.

MINNESOTA IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

AND SO IT MAKES SENSE FOR ALL OF US TO COLLABORATE.

>> Cathy: SO YOU MENTIONS THAT IN THE PAST, OVER THE YEARS, THIS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED.

IT PROBABLY WILL BE CHALLENGES AGAIN, DON'T YOU SUPPOSE?

AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS MIGHT -- WHETHER CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION MIGHT THIS BE CHALLENGED?

>> WELL, WHAT WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE SEEN THREE CHALLENGES SO FAR IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

AND ONE WAS ABOUT DOMICILE, WHETHER A MOTHER WHO WAS PREGNANT WHO HAD HER CHILDREN OFF RESERVATION PURPOSEFULLY TO ADOPT THEM OUT IF THE TRIBE CONTINUED TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT.

THE COURT SAID YES IN 1989.

IN 2013, WE HAD A CHALLENGE BY A FATHER WHO WAS IN THE MILITARY, DIDN'T KNOW HIS GIRLFRIEND WAS ADOPTING OUT THE CHILD.

CAME ACK, TRIED TO GET IN THE COURT CASE.

GOES UP TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE SUPREME COURT SAYS, YOU WERE NONCUZ TOADAL.

SO YOU DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT.

THAT WAS A HEART BREAKER, I'LL TELL YOU.

SO THIS IS THE THIRD.

7-2.

CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENACT THE LAW.

AND ALL OF THE RACIAL CLASSIFICATION ARGUMENTS WERE SORT OF THROWN UP AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE IF THEY WOULD SYSTEM STICK, AND THERE WERE SOME FEDERAL JUDGES THAT GAVE THAT SOME PLAY IN THE FIFTH CIRCUITED AND IN THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

SO THAT WAS VERY CONCERNING.

BUT THIS SUPREME COURT CASE REALLY LAYS ALL THAT TO REST AND SAYS THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT YOU CAN REALLY DO ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS UNDER CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.

AND IT'S UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SUPREMACY CLAUSE, WHERE FEDERAL LAW, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND TREATIES ENTERED INTO BY THE UNITED STATES ARE THE SUPREME LAW THE LAND AND STATE JUDGES MUST FOLLOW THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

>> Eric: GREAT EXPLANATION FOR US TONIGHT.