Missoulian: Court: Child isn't required to go to father
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
“The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), which establishes federal standards for state-court child custody proceedings involving Indian children, was enacted to address “the consequences . . . of abusive child welfare practices that [separated] Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes,” Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U. S. 30, 32. As relevant here, the ICWA bars involuntary termination of a parent’s rights in the absence of a heightened showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s “continued custody” of the child, 25 U. S. C. §1912(f);conditions involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child on a showing that remedial efforts have been made to prevent the “breakup of the Indian family,” §1912(d); and provides placement preferences for the adoption of Indian children to member of the child’s extended family, other members of the Indian child’s tribe, and other Indian families, §1915(a)”
“The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), which establishes federal standards for state-court child custody proceedings involving Indian children, was enacted to address “the consequences . . . of abusive child welfare practices that [separated] Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes,” Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U. S. 30, 32. As relevant here, the ICWA bars involuntary termination of a parent’s rights in the absence of a heightened showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s “continued custody” of the child, 25 U. S. C. §1912(f);conditions involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child on a showing that remedial efforts have been made to prevent the “breakup of the Indian family,” §1912(d); and provides placement preferences for the adoption of Indian children to member of the child’s extended family, other members of the Indian child’s tribe, and other Indian families, §1915(a)”
Missoulian: High court voids key part of Voting Rights Act
“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address
entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil
which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and
ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.
S. 301, 309. Section 2 of the Act, which bans any“ standard, practice, or
procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen
. . . to vote on account of race or color,” 42 U. S. C. §1973(a), applies
nationwide, is permanent, and is not at issue in this case. Other sections
apply only to some parts of the country. Section 4 of the Act provides the
“coverage formula,” defining the “covered jurisdictions” as States or political
subdivisions that maintained tests or devices as prerequisites to voting, and
had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. §1973b(b).
In those covered jurisdictions, §5 of the Act provides that no change in voting
procedures can take effect until approved by specified federal authorities in
Washington, D. C. §1973c(a). Such approval is known as “preclearance.”
Missoulian: AP Survey: Bernanke comments surprised investors
