Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield

Last updated
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 11, 1989
Decided April 3, 1989
Full case nameMississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Orrey Curtiss Holyfield et ux., J.B., Natural Mother and W.J., Natural Father
Citations490 U.S. 30 ( more )
109 S. Ct. 1597; 104 L. Ed. 2d 29; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1791
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorIn the Matter of B.B. and G.B., Minors, 511 So. 2d 918 (Miss. 1987)
Holding
That: (1) though "domicile" in the Indian Child Welfare Act was not statutorily defined, Congress did not intend for state courts to define that term as matter of state law, and (2) children were "domiciled" on reservation when both parents lived on the reservation, and the state court was without jurisdiction to enter adoption decree
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia
DissentStevens, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy
Laws applied
25 U.S.C.   §§ 1901–1963

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Indian Child Welfare Act governed adoptions of Indian children. It ruled that a tribal court had jurisdiction over a state court, regardless of the location of birth of the child, if the child or the natural parents resided on the reservation. [1]

Contents

Background

History of removal

From 1850 to about 1960, many American Indian children were forcibly taken from their families and their tribes to go to Indian boarding schools, in what has been described as efforts at forced assimilation as well as education. [2] At the schools, Indian children were expected to speak English and practice Christianity; they were punished for speaking their own languages. [3] Reformers wanted the Indians to choose "assimilation over extinction." [4] In 1890 approximately 12,000 Indian children were attending Indian boarding schools. [5]

According to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs:

The general purpose of the Government is the preparation of Indian youth for assimilation into the national life by such a course in training as will prepare them for the duties and privileges of American citizenship." [6] [lower-alpha 1]

By 1928 assimilation through the boarding schools was no longer popular with the public, and the Meriam Report condemned the practice of forcibly removing Indian children from their families. [8] [lower-alpha 2] This type of removal ended during the 1930s, although Indian boarding schools continued to enroll numerous children.

After World War II, the intervention of state social welfare workers into overseeing Indian families resulted in another type of removal. Indian children were removed from their families when social workers judged the conditions were poor for the child, and placed in foster care or for adoption. Often the social workers did not understand tribal culture and the role of extended family members in the care of the child. [10]

In many cases, the dominant non-Indian culture justified the removal in order to protect or rescue the children from what they claimed was barbarism on the reservation. [11] Indian children were placed outside the home at a rate five times greater than for non-Indian children. By the 1970s, an estimated 25 to 35% of Indian children were placed in foster care at some point, usually with non-Indian families. Children who were adopted out were overwhelmingly adopted by non-Indian families, cutting them off from their culture, and threatening the survival of the tribes. [12] [lower-alpha 3]

Indian Child Welfare Act

Native American tribes increasingly protested against the practice of removing their children and placing them with non-Native families. They organized and lobbied to gain relief from this practice. In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). [14] This law was enacted to protect tribes and their children; due to the high rate of Indian children who were being removed from their families and placed with non-Indian families, the children's Indian identities were lost and tribe survival was being threatened. [15] In many cases, the children were removed even from families who resided on Indian reservations, where the state government did not have legal jurisdiction. [16] Many parents and children were denied due process, either by the state agency or the state court, leading to a finding by Congress that the states had failed to recognize tribal culture, relations, and standards. [17]

Congress established both procedural and substantive provisions in the ICWA that are designed to 1) eliminate the need to remove Indian children due to cultural bias; 2) try to ensure that Indian children are placed in foster and adoptive homes that reflect Indian culture; and 3) to promote the use of tribal, rather than state, courts to adjudicate Indian child custody proceedings. [18]

The ICWA gives the tribal court exclusive jurisdiction for children who are born or who live on tribal land, and concurrent jurisdiction with state courts in all other cases. [19]

Lower courts

In 1985, a set of Indian twins were born in Harrison County, Mississippi, 200 miles from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. The mother had moved to Harrison County for the sole purpose of giving birth off the reservation and for placing the twins with the Holyfields, as she was unable to find a relative or family on the reservation willing to adopt both the children to keep them together. She was unable to raise them herself. [20] The natural parents, both Choctaw, were not married and already had other children. Both parents executed a consent for adoption in the Harrison County Chancery Court. The Holyfields, a non-Indian couple, adopted the twins as arranged. The state court signed a final decree of adoption in early 1986.

Two months later, the tribe moved to vacate the adoption, stating that the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction. The state trial court denied their motion, noting that the children had never lived on the reservation and were not born there. The tribe appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which affirmed the state trial court's decision. [21] The tribe appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. [22]

Opinion of the Court

Justice William J. Brennan delivered the opinion of the court. Brennan reviewed the intent of Congress and noted that one in eight Indian children were adopted out and that 90% of those children went to non-Indian homes. He noted that for children born or residing on a reservation, the tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction. In other cases, the tribal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. In those cases, on the motion of a parent or the tribe, the matter is to be transferred to the tribal court with three exceptions - for "good cause," objection to the transfer by either parent, or the declination of jurisdiction in the matter by the tribal court. [23] He ruled that the Mississippi Supreme Court was in error by emphasizing the non-reservation birth of the children, the fact that they never lived on the reservation, and the voluntary relinquishment by the natural parents. [24]

Both of the natural parents resided on the reservation. A child's domicile follows that of the parent. The fact that the parents traveled 200 miles to avoid giving birth on the reservation does not serve to eliminate the tribal court's exclusive jurisdiction. It had an interest beyond the parents in preserving Indian children within the tribe. Since the tribal court had such jurisdiction, the state court did not, and had no authority to enter an order of adoption. Reversed and remanded. [25]

Dissent

Justice John P. Stevens, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy, dissented from the majority opinion. Stevens believed that, since the parents consented to the adoption and wanted to use the state court, they should be allowed to do so. Stevens believed that the ICWA was intended to apply primarily to the involuntary removal of Indian children from their families and the tribe, and a voluntary action by parents does not have the same characteristics. Stevens would have affirmed the decision of the state courts. [26]

Subsequent developments

After the remand from the Supreme Court, the tribal court allowed the children to remain with their adoptive family, because "it would have been cruel to take them from the only mother they knew." [27] By this time the twins were three and a half years old. In addition, they had had no exposure to the Choctaw language, and eighty percent of the people on the reservation spoke Choctaw. [28] The tribal court feared immersing them in that culture would be like sending them to a foreign country. But the court ordered that the children be enabled to stay in contact with their natural extended family and tribe. [28] [27]

The case has strongly influenced family law involving Indian children, having been cited in more than 1,000 cases since the decision. It has also been extensively referenced in books [29] and journals on Native American law. [28]

Although the Supreme Court was clear that the ICWA was to be applied to adoption cases based on the statute and the accompanying House Report, "by making sure that Indian child welfare determinations are not based on "a white, middle-class standard ..."", [30] state courts created references to an "existing Indian family". [31] They used this to allow exceptions to the application of the ICWA. [32] In those cases, courts had held that if the child was not part of an existing Indian family, then the ICWA did not apply, but this exception was not included anywhere in the law. At one point, nearly half of the states used the exception to evade tribal jurisdiction. [33]

But as of 2010, only six states continue to use the exception. The courts appear to have better understood the purpose of the law and consider, appropriately, tribal interests as importantly as the child's interests in these cases. They also have gained a better understanding of the importance of tribal cultures, and the practice of members of the extended family being integral to a child's support. [34]

Notes

  1. ↑ It was not until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 that all Native Americans were granted US citizenship. But by that time, many were already citizens through other actions. [7]
  2. ↑ The team that created the Meriam Report was headed by Lewis Meriam, who had a Bachelor's degree in economics and a Master's degree in government from Harvard University, and law degrees from National University School of Law and George Washington University. [9]
  3. ↑ Up to 25-35% of Indian children were placed in foster care at some point in their lives. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Abourezk</span> American attorney and politician

James George Abourezk is an American attorney and Democratic politician who served as a United States senator and United States representative from South Dakota. He did not seek re-election to the US Senate in 1978. He was the first Greek Orthodox Christian of Lebanese-Antiochite descent to serve in the US Senate. He was generally viewed as critical of US foreign policy in the Middle-East and North Africa (MENA) area, particularly regarding Palestine and Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma</span> Indian reservation

The Choctaw Nation is a Native American territory covering about 6,952,960 acres, occupying portions of southeastern Oklahoma in the United States. The Choctaw Nation is the third-largest federally recognized tribe in the United States and the second-largest Indian reservation in area after the Navajo. As of 2011, the tribe has 223,279 enrolled members, of whom 84,670 live within the state of Oklahoma and 41,616 live within the Choctaw Nation's jurisdiction. A total of 233,126 people live within these boundaries, with its tribal jurisdictional area comprising 10.5 counties in the state, with the seat of government being located in Durant, Oklahoma. It shares borders with the reservations of the Chickasaw, Muscogee, and Cherokee, as well as the U.S. states of Texas and Arkansas. By area, the Choctaw Nation is larger than eight U.S. states.

In law, a ward is a minor or incapacitated adult placed under the protection of a legal guardian or government entity, such as a court. Such a person may be referenced as a "ward of the court".

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is one of three federally recognized tribes of Choctaw Native Americans, and the only one in the state of Mississippi. On April 20, 1945, this tribe organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Their reservation in included lands in Neshoba, Leake, Newton, Scott, Jones, Attala, Kemper, and Winston counties. The Mississippi Choctaw regained stewardship of their mother mound, Nanih Waiya mounds and cave in 2008. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw have declared August 18 as a tribal holiday to celebrate their regaining control of the sacred site. The other two Choctaw groups are the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the third largest tribe in the United States, and the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, located in Louisiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Child Welfare Act</span> 1978 U.S. federal law regulating tribal jurisdiction over court cases involving children

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) is a United States federal law that governs jurisdiction over the removal of American Indian children from their families in custody, foster care and adoption cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Indian boarding schools</span> Residential schools established to assimilate Native American children into a white American society

American Indian boarding schools, also known more recently as American Indian residential schools, were established in the United States from the mid-17th to the early 20th centuries with a primary objective of "civilizing" or assimilating Native American children and youth into European American culture. In the process, these schools denigrated Native American culture and made children give up their languages and religion. At the same time the schools provided a basic Western education. These boarding schools were first established by Christian missionaries of various denominations. The missionaries were often approved by the federal government to start both missions and schools on reservations, especially in the lightly populated areas of the West. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries especially, the government paid religious orders to provide basic education to Native American children on reservations, and later established its own schools on reservations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also founded additional off-reservation boarding schools based on the assimilation model. These sometimes drew children from a variety of tribes. In addition, religious orders established off-reservation schools.

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, also known as the Harvard Project, was founded in 1987 at Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University. It administers tribal awards programs as well as provides support for students and conducting research. The Harvard Project aims to understand and foster the conditions under which sustained, self-determined social and economic development is achieved among American Indian nations through applied research and service.

The Association on American Indian Affairs is a nonprofit human rights charity located in Rockville, Maryland. Founded in 1922, it is dedicated to protecting the rights of Native Americans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian country jurisdiction</span>

Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as Worcester v. Georgia, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, Montana v. United States, and McGirt v. Oklahoma.

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed two issues: (1) Whether the title of the Big Horn Riverbed rested with the United States, in trust for the Crow Nation or passed to the State of Montana upon becoming a state and (2) Whether Crow Nation retained the power to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands owned in fee-simple by a non-tribal member. First, the Court held that Montana held title to the Big Horn Riverbed because the Equal Footing Doctrine required the United States to pass title to the newly incorporated State. Second, the Court held that Crow Nation lacked the power to regulate nonmember hunting and fishing on fee-simple land owned by nonmembers, but within the bounds of its reservation. More broadly, the Court held that Tribes could not exercise regulatory authority over nonmembers on fee-simple land within the reservation unless (1) the nonmember entered a "consensual relationship" with the Tribe or its members or (2) the nonmember's "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), was a landmark case in the area of federal Indian law involving issues of great importance to the meaning of tribal sovereignty in the contemporary United States. The Supreme Court sustained a law passed by the governing body of the Santa Clara Pueblo that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex. In so doing, the Court advanced a theory of tribal sovereignty that weighed the interests of tribes sufficient to justify a law that, had it been passed by a state legislature or Congress, would have almost certainly been struck down as a violation of equal protection.

The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage in the states and most territories did not legalize same-sex marriage on Indian reservations. In the United States, Congress has legal authority over tribal reservations. Thus, unless Congress passes a law regarding same-sex marriage that is applicable to tribal governments, federally recognized American Indian tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws. As such, the individual laws of the various United States federally recognized Native American tribes may set limits on same-sex marriage under their jurisdictions. At least ten reservations specifically prohibit same-sex marriage and do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions; these reservations, alongside American Samoa, remain the only parts of the United States to enforce explicit bans on same-sex couples marrying.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area</span> Statistical entity

Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area is a statistical entity identified and delineated by federally recognized American Indian tribes in Oklahoma as part of the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 Census and ongoing American Community Survey. Many of these areas are also designated Tribal Jurisdictional Areas, areas within which tribes will provide government services and assert other forms of government authority. They differ from standard reservations, such as the Osage Nation of Oklahoma, in that allotment was broken up and as a consequence their residents are a mix of native and non-native people, with only tribal members subject to the tribal government. At least five of these areas, those of the so-called five civilized tribes of Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole, which cover 43% of the area of the state, are recognized as reservations by federal treaty, and thus not subject to state law or jurisdiction for tribal members.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American biological fathers who are not custodians of a Native American child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child has never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Native American family also does not apply, nor is the preferred placement of the child in another Native American family required when no other party has formally sought to adopt the child.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court was asked to determine if an American Indian tribal court had the jurisdiction to hear a civil case involving a non-Indian who operated a Dollar General store on tribal land under a consensual relationship with the tribe. The Court was equally divided, 4–4, and thereby affirmed the decision of the lower court, in this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that the court had jurisdiction.

The Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission, also known as the MWTRC was a commission looking at events relating to Wabanaki children and families from 1978, when the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed, until now. The Commission was officially established on February 12, 2012 and issued its final report on June 14, 2015. The MWTRC's mandate was to find Truth, Healing and Change by giving the Wabanaki people and others involved within the Maine Child Welfare System a place to voice their stories and experiences. The final report addressed findings made by the commission and provided recommendations to improve compliance with the ICWA.

Haaland v. Brackeen is a pending Supreme Court of the United States case brought by the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana, and individual plaintiffs, that seeks to declare the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unconstitutional. In addition to Haaland v. Brackeen, three additional cases have been consolidated to be heard at the same time. Those cases are Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, Texas v. Haaland, and Brackeen v. Haaland.

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ↑ Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989).
  2. ↑ Terri Libesman, Decolonising Indigenous Child Welfare: Comparative Perspectives 108 (2013); Ronald Niezen, Spirit Wars: Native North American Religions in the Age of Nation Building 68 (2000).
  3. ↑ Libesman, at 108.
  4. ↑ David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928, 16 (1995).
  5. ↑ Walter L. Hixson, American Settler Colonialism 141 (2013).
  6. ↑ Adams, at 24.
  7. ↑ Indian Citizenship Act, June 2, 1924, Pub. L.   68–175, 43  Stat.   253; 4 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 1165 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1929).
  8. ↑ Margaret D. Jacobs, White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940, 407 (2009); Niezen, at 68.
  9. ↑ Institute for Gov't Research, The Problem of Indian Administration 79 (Lewis Meriam et al. eds. 1928).
  10. ↑ Boarding School Blues: Revisiting American Indian Educational Experiences 205-05 (Clifford E. Trafzer, Jean A. Keller, & Lorene Sisquoc eds., 2006).
  11. ↑ Trafzer, at 206-07.
  12. ↑ 3 Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development 481 (William Damon, Richard M. Lerner, & Nancy Eisenberg eds., 2006).
  13. ↑ Billy Joe Jones, Mark Tilden, & Kelly Gaines-Stoner, The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook: A Legal Guide to the Custody and Adoption of Native American Children 2 (2d ed. 2008).
  14. ↑ Indian Child Welfare Act, Nov. 8, 1978, Pub. L.   95–608, 92  Stat.   3069 (codified at 25 U.S.C.   §§ 1901 – 1963).
  15. ↑ Jones, at 2.
  16. ↑ Jones, at 2.
  17. ↑ 25 U.S.C. § 1901(5); Jones, at 4-5.
  18. ↑ Jones, at 4-5.
  19. ↑ 25 U.S.C.   § 1911; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 36 (1989).
  20. ↑ Solangel Maldonaldo, "Race, Culture, and Adoption: Lessons from Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield," 17 Colum. J. of Gender & L. 1 (2008).
  21. ↑ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___; In the matter of B.B. and G.B., Minors, 511 So.2d 918 (Miss. 1987).
  22. ↑ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___
  23. ↑ 25 U.S.C. § 1911.
  24. ↑ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___
  25. ↑ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___
  26. ↑ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___
  27. 1 2 Adam Liptak, "Case Pits Adoptive Parents Against Tribal Rights", N.Y. Times, Dec. 25, 2012, at A12.
  28. 1 2 3 Diane Allbaugh, Tribal Jurisdiction over Indian Children: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 16 Am. Indian L. Rev. 533 (1991); Maldonaldo, 17 Colum. J. of Gender & L. at 1; Stan Watts, Voluntary Adoptions Under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978: Balancing the Interests of Children, Families, and Tribes, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 213 (1989).
  29. ↑ N. Bruce Duthu, American Indians and the Law ___ (2008); Jones, at ___; Lynn D. Wardle, Fundamental Principles of Family Law ___ (2005).
  30. ↑ Holyfield, 490 U.S. at ___
  31. ↑ In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy L., 643 P.2d 168 (Kan. 1982) ("the Act is concerned with the removal of Indian children from an existing Indian family unit and the resultant breakup of the Indian family") (emphasis added), overruled by In re A.J.S., 204 P.3d 543 (Kan. 2010).
  32. ↑ Dan Lewerenz & Padraic McCoy, The End of the "Existing Indian Family" Jurisprudence: Holyfield at 20, In the Matter of A.J.S. and the Last Gasps of a Dying Doctrine, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 684 (2010).
  33. ↑ Lewerenz, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. at ___.
  34. ↑ Lewerenz, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. at ___.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.