 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a father who was a member of the Cherokee Nation could not reclaim parental rights of his child under the Indian Child Welfare Act because he never had custody of the child.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1892) |
|
In this case, Juan Rey Abeita petitioned on behalf of his three sons against the superintendent of the Government Indian School in Albuquerque, who refused to allow his sons to return home. The writ was granted, but Abeita later withdrew the petition. Records in the Office of Indian Affairs indicate that the agency pressured the superintendent into releasing the children to avoid an unfavorable legal ruling.
|
| Indian Child Welfare Act (1978) |
|
An Act intended "to protect the best interests of Indian Children," the Indian Child Welfare Act supports tribal sovereignty and tribal involvement in the welfare of its children. The Indian Child Welfare Act was upheld in the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Haaland v. Brackeen.
|
| Letter from Thirteen Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen Pleading for Federal Assistance in Emancipating their Kin (1865) |
|
This letter, formulated by a group of thirteen men who fled enslavement in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, details how Choctaw and Chickasaw enslavers continued to hold Black people in bondage. The letter includes a plea for federal assistance in ensuring the freedom of the authors' family members, an exhibit with the names and locations of eighty people who were still enslaved in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, and an accounting of how self-emancipated Black people were under threat of immediate death if they were to return to either nation.
|
| Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) |
|
In the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court found that same-sex marriage was protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
|
| United States v. Windsor (2013) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. It examined the argument of a same-sex couple who were married in Canada and wanted the tax benefits of marriage after one partner died. While same-sex marriage was recognized by the State of New York, the Defense of Marriage Act prevented federal recognition of their marriage.
|