From the ACLU, this is at Liberty.

I'm Kendall Seasmayer, your host.

On November 9th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Brekeen v. Holland.

At the center of the case are the future of

indigenous rights and tribal sovereignty. The case involves the Indian Child Welfare Act,

otherwise known as ICWA, for short, an act that was passed in the 70s to protect native

children from removal from their community and culture

and to keep families together. Texas, together with individual plaintiffs, alleged that ICWA is

unconstitutional because they say it violates the equal protection clause and discriminates

against non-native families, looking to

adopt native children. But honoring tribal sovereignty isn't about discrimination or race. That's a

fundamental misunderstanding of indigenous rights. To learn more about the case, the threat to indigenous rights, and the

reasons that ICWA was enacted in the first place, I spoke with Jamie Nelson and Stephanie

Amiat. Here are their stories. My name is Jamie Nelson. I am a Choi Numni Yocuts man from Fresno, California. I am alive. I am here,

and I'm ready to tell my story. Jamie was separated from his family, tribe and culture when he was a small

child. He was adopted by a white family, and his siblings were adopted by other non-native

families. He calls himself a survivor of pre-Indian Child Welfare Act abuses. His removal was

deeply traumatic and left him with both terror and confusion. There's a lot of muddy water in there.

I know that it happened at a very young age in the late 70s.

My biological parents, they were...

My mom was either addicted to drugs.

My dad was a pretty bad dude.

...