The Indian Child Welfare Act and the 14th Amendment

We the People

National Constitution Center

News, News Commentary, History

4.6 • 1.1K Ratings

🗓️ 24 November 2022

⏱️ 60 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

On Wednesday, November 9, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act. Opponents of ICWA say that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, discriminating against non-Native foster parents. Defenders of ICWA say that tribal sovereignty means the relationship of Native people to the US government is political, not racial. Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and Elizabeth Reese of Stanford Law join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments in the case and discuss the future of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Hello, I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and welcome
0:09.2	to We The People, a weekly show of constitutional debate.
0:12.8	The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by Congress
0:17.5	to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people. On November 9th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Holland versus
0:26.4	Burkin, a case challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
0:31.6	Joining us to discuss this important case
0:34.2	are two of America's leading scholars
0:36.7	on the important constitutional issues
0:38.9	that it raises.
0:40.3	Timothy Sandifer is Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Sharf Norton Center for constitutional litigation and holds the Duncan chair in constitutional government.
0:49.5	He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Texas and the Burkine family.
0:54.0	Timothy, thank you so much for joining.
0:56.0	Thanks for having me.
0:57.0	And Elizabeth Reese is an assistant professor of law at Stanford University, a scholar of
1:01.0	tribal and federal Indian law, and a citizen of Nambay Pueblo.
1:05.0	Elizabeth, it's an honor to have you on We The People.
1:08.0	Kunda, thank you so much for having me.
1:10.0	Let's begin with the stakes of the case.
1:13.2	Timothy, why is this case important and what are the constitutional issues that it raises?
1:17.1	Well, it raises a great many constitutional issues.
1:20.6	The reason this case is important is because this is a 45 or so year old
1:26.5	federal law that sets a series of rules and standards that states are required to
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from National Constitution Center, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of National Constitution Center and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.