A case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding adoption preferences for Native Americans might influence a lawsuit in Washington state regarding sports betting exclusivity on tribal lands.
The case before the highest court in the land centers around the right of Native American families to have preference over non-Native families in the adoption placements of Native kids.
The plaintiffs in Brackeen v. Haaland claim the preference is based on race, rather than the political sovereignty of tribal nations. If they are successful, the U.S. government could threaten the sovereignty of Native Americans.
“It could have really big impacts on basically every law Congress has passed that has to do with tribes and tribal citizens,” said Rebecca Nagle, a journalist, citizen of the Cherokee Nation and host of the “This Land” podcast, told Oregon Live. “It’s really the legal foundation for the rights of indigenous nations in this country.”
A lawsuit in Washington state is also challenging tribal lands’ ability to monopolize sports betting. Maverick Gaming said a 2020 law that allows sports betting only on tribal lands is a “discriminatory tribal gaming monopoly.”
They also contend that the gaming compacts between Washington and tribes are based on race and that discriminates against non-tribal casinos. Maverick has 19 card clubs in Washington.
Advocates warn that if the two cases are successful, they could effectively end the political status indigenous people have enjoyed for more than 70 years.
The U.S. Constitution defines the political status of tribes and proponents liken it to treaties the government has signed with other nations.
“You don’t make treaties with a race or an ethnic group,” Daniel Lewerenz, an assistant law professor at the University of North Dakota and attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, told Oregon Live. “You make treaties with a political entity, with a sovereign.”
But opponents of tribal sovereignty are starting to gain more of a voice. Organizations such as Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA), claim that anyone who isn’t a Native American is being left out.
“How does the federal government promote tribal sovereignty and not discriminate against the rest of us?” asked Lana Marcussen, CERA’s attorney for 25 years.
This is reminiscent of the 1950s when groups like CERA were successful in getting the government to pass laws marginalizing Indigenous people.
The results were a blow to Native tribes. Congress passed 46 laws terminating 109 tribes around the United States, including 62 in Oregon — more than any other state.
The tide turned 10 years later as the U.S. government firmly repudiated termination policy. In 1975, Congress enacted a policy that reaffirmed treaty rights.
