 Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia Colony |
|
Between 1639 and 1691, Virginia Colony established a series of statutes that increasingly limited the rights of Indigenous and Black residents while expanding the rights of Europeans. These acts reflect the increasing racialization of the colonial legal code.
|
| Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl |
|
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.
|
| AHA–OAH Statement on Executive Order "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling" |
|
This joint statement from the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians calls out the "politicization of history grounded in ahistorical thinking" mandated by Executive Order 14190. More than 30 other organizations have signed on to the statement.
|
| Alice McKay v. John Kevan and Della Kevan |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Alice McKay shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century.
|
| An Act For the removal of restrictions from part of the lands of allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes |
|
This congressional act established Oklahoma county probate courts as the main arbiters of land held by allottees of the Five Tribes. In particular, minors, incompetents, and deceased members of the Five Tribes were targeted for guardian interventions in the probate courts.
|
| Brief of Amici Curiae American Historical Association and Organization of American Historians In Support of Federal and Tribal Parties |
|
The amicus brief for Haaland v. Brackeen, submitted by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians in support of federal and tribal parties, outlines key historical issues of child removal in tribal communities.
|
| Cherokee Allotment Act |
|
Excerpts from this congressional act brought the Cherokee Nation into the federal process of allotment and gave the Dawes Commission exclusive jurisdiction over legal conflicts related to allotment.
|
| Creek Supplemental Agreement |
|
Excerpts from this supplement to the Creek Agreement of 1901 renegotiated many legal issues related to allotment, including citizenship, leases, and inheritance. In particular, section six voided Creek law over land, descent, and distribution, and replaced it with Mansfield's Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas.
|
| Defining Race & Lifelong Servitude in the Colonial Americas |
|
This module links Spanish colonial documents from the turn of the sixteenth century to British colonial innovations in the seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries, demonstrating how European colonists developed a racialized hierarchy that justified the widespread enslavement of Africans and their descendants.
|
| Elizabeth Bird v. Frances Pattmore |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Elizabeth Bird shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, Bird argued that she was made the legal guardian of Missouri Bird, a ten year old child, by the child's mother, and claimed that Missouri was being confined to the house of Frances Pattmore. Pattmore responded that Missouri's presence in her house was of her own free will. The court awarded custody of Missouri to Pattmore.
|
| Executive Order 14190 - Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling |
|
This executive order by President Donald Trump directs the U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies to end funding and support for "illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination" in K-12 schools, including based on "gender ideology" and "discriminatory equity ideology." It also calls for the reestablishment of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission "to promote patriotic education."
|
| Haaland v. Brackeen |
|
In Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, ruling that states could not circumvent ICWA adoption protocol.
|
| In the Matter of Julia alias Mary Ann on Habeas Corpus |
|
In 1834, Julia successfully filed a freedom suit in St. Louis. Two years later, her mother, having secured her own freedom, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Julia, claiming that she was still being held by her former enslavers. When Julia was presented to the court, the writ was discharged, the court "being satisfied that she is contented with her situation, and does not wish to exchange it."
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Mary Marshall, mother of William Marshall an Infant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Mary Marshall shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and child custody in the nineteenth century. After being abandoned by her husband, a mother and her three children were forced to enter a charitable home. When one child became ill, he was given to the custody of a physician. The court ruled that custody of the child was lawful, but that in six months time, the mother could petition to amend or modify the judge's order.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
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.
|
| In the matter of the Petition of William M. Parkinson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petition of William M. Parkinson shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a father used habeas corpus in an attempt to retrieve his nine-year-old son from his ex-wife and her new husband. The child's fate is unknown.
|
| Indian Appropriations Act of 1902 |
|
Referred to as the "Dead Indian Act," excerpts from this congressional act show how privilege was given to guardians with the power to sell allotted land of minor heirs of deceased tribal citizens. The act also established a new federal judicial district in Indian Territory.
|
| Indian Child Welfare Act |
|
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.
|
| Julia, alias Mary Ann v. Robert Duncan |
|
This freedom suit was brought on behalf of Julia, a child under the age of 21 who was unlawfully enslaved in St. Louis by the man who sold her free mother into slavery in Louisiana. Although the court granted Julia her freedom, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by her mother two years later shows that Julia was still being held by her enslaver.
|
| Regulated Slave Trade Act |
|
This act, also known as Dolben's Act, placed limits and regulations on the slave trade, and illustrates the attempts to regulate the numbers of children in the slave trade.
|
| Roberto Alvarez, et al. v. E. L. Owen, et al. |
|
This case was the first successful school desegregation case in the United States, decided fifteen years before Brown v. Board of Education. When the school board in Lemon Grove, California, attempted to build a separate school for students of Mexican origin, the court ruled that the segregation violated state laws which considered people of Mexican descent to be white.
|
| Seminole Agreement |
|
Excerpts from this congressional act ratified an agreement with the Seminole Nation concerning allotment, like enrollment and laws of descent. The second proviso established matrilineal descent of lands, money, and property for heirs.
|
 Stowage of the British slave ship "Brookes" under the Regulated Slave Trade Act |
|
This image was used by English abolitionists to demonstrate the terrible conditions aboard slave ships.
|
| The Five Civilized Tribes Act |
|
Excerpts from this congressional act legislated the end of tribal enrollment in the Five Tribes, as well as the dissolution of their tribal government. However, section 28 extended tribal sovereignty for the Five Tribes for a truncated 30 days per year.
|
| Yarborough v. Alvarado |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that stated that youth and inexperience with law enforcement should be accounted for when evaluating custody. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that previous rulings had rejected reliance on factors such as age and inexperience in custody analysis.
|