Pipeline Construction

In order to transport fossil fuels quickly and cheaply across large distances, energy companies build oil pipelines. Often, these pipelines will go through indigenous reservations, creating environmental hazards. If and when the pipelines leak, the water supply and other resources become contaminated. Two famous examples are the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. In 2008, a Canadian energy company wanted to build an extension to the Keystone pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Oklahoma. The extension, called Keystone XL, would transport tar sands oil from Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast in Texas, crossing many indigenous lands and environmentally important areas. Tar sands oil, considered the world’s dirtiest oil, is more corrosive and more likely to cause a leak than regular crude oil. Its leaks are also harder to clean up. Over the next few years, indigenous groups as well as scientists and economists came together to protest the pipeline. In response to these efforts, the Obama administration refused to grant a permit in 2015. However, Trump authorized the permit immediately upon taking office in 2017, kicking off another wave of protests. Finally, in 2021, Biden revoked the permit. This, in addition to the legal challenges, declining oil prices, and growing opposition, finally ended the Keystone XL project. Meanwhile, the Dakota Access Pipeline, built in 2017, is still in operation. It transports oil from North Dakota to the Gulf, crossing the Missouri River in Cannon Ball, North Dakota. Cannon Ball is located in the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, meaning many Sioux tribe members would be severely impacted if there were oil leaks near the river. Despite opposition, the Biden administration allowed the project to continue. Oil pipeline construction is a recurring issue for indigenous Americans. Every time indigenous groups achieve termination of one of the projects, it seems like a new one is being developed. 

Note: Although the Keystone XL project failed, the Keystone pipeline is still in operation. On December 7, 2022, the largest oil spill in its history was detected in Kansas. Although the EPA has said that no water sources or people were directly affected, the damage from oil spills can spread much further. And while this doesn’t seem to affect indigenous Americans, it demonstrates the potential impact of similar spills in indigenous territory and its disastrous effects on the environment.

Indigenous Adoption Choice

A less clear-cut issue is that of the transracial adoption of indigenous people. In 1978, the United States government passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which gave tribal governments control over adoption, foster care, and custody matters for indigenous children. The opposite had been happening in the decades before the act was passed. In the 1800s, the government established several boarding schools in an effort to forcefully assimilate indigenous children. In these schools, education was based on White American principles and any attempts students made at practicing indigenous customs, like speaking their native languages, were punished. Many children in these schools were subject to abuse; over a hundred students died while attending the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. Then, in the mid-1900s, the government switched gears and started advertising the Indian Adoption Project, in which it paid White American families to adopt indigenous children. This was another effort to assimilate indigenous children; raising children in a non-indigenous household would weaken their connections to their culture and heritage. In fact, many transracial adoptees have expressed remorse that they could not grow up surrounded by their culture and having knowledge of where they came from. 

The ICWA was passed to prevent this history from repeating, give indigenous governments more decision-making power in the futures of their people, and prevent indigenous families from being broken up. Under the ICWA, the priority would be to place the child with family (even if they’re not indigenous). The next choice would be the child’s tribe, then other indigenous tribes. These levels of priority reflect an important cultural difference: how family fitness is determined. For indigenous groups, placing children with their families and tribes and maintaining cultural connection is the most important thing to consider. In other places, concerns over wealth take top priority. So while a non-indigenous family may be richer than the child’s indigenous family financially, the indigenous family that has the familial and cultural relationship (which has been ignored in the past) would be considered to be better equipped for raising the child. Due to the complexity of this issue, it’s no surprise that the ICWA has faced numerous legal challenges. One such case took place in 2016, when the Brackeens, a White couple living in Texas, tried to adopt an infant indigenous boy (“A.L.M”). He had been born to a Navajo mother, who had been struggling with drugs. After months of not being able to find an indigenous placement, the Cherokee (A.L.M.’s father’s tribe) and Navajo tribes allowed the Brackeens to adopt him. A few years later, when his half-sister (“Y.R.J.”) was born and placed in foster care (also due to their mother’s drug use), the case returned to the courts again. The Brackeens wanted to adopt Y.R.J., claiming it would be in the siblings’ best interest to raise them together. However, this time, a placement was found: Y.R.J.’s great-aunt, Alvetta James. A Texas judge awarded shared custody between the Brackeens and James, but both parties appealed the decision. The case eventually made its way through the levels of the legal system, with both sides gaining support. Haaland v. Brackeen aims to repeal the ICWA and is currently pending in the Supreme Court. A decision is expected in the spring of 2023.

While this issue might seem like an isolated case, the reality is that even with the ICWA, indigenous needs in the foster care system are not being met. In addition, the case has a lot of implications in the broader context of indigenous sovereignty. Conversations surrounding how much independence and jurisdiction tribal governments should have have been increasing across the legal and legislative realms. Because the argument against the IWCA is that it demonstrates a race-based preference rather than a political one, the Supreme Court’s decision will establish whether indigenous tribes are considered more a racial or political group and show us the future of tribal sovereignty laws.

Voting Rights and Accessibility

Voting rights and accessibility have been a big struggle for indigenous people throughout history. The Fifteenth Amendment granted voting rights to all citizens in 1870, but many indigenous people weren’t counted as citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. They had to attain it through other methods, like serving in the army or giving up tribal affiliation. It wasn’t until 1924, when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed, that indigenous people born within the “territorial limits” of the US were considered citizens. Even then, the right to vote was left for states to decide. In addition, they faced a lot of restrictive voting practices, like poll taxes and literacy tests, along with many Black Americans. It took decades and lots of legislation, like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for indigenous people to be able to actually exercise their rights. 

However, many indigenous Americans still face problems with voter suppression laws, which especially affect those living in rural and isolated areas on reservations. Voting centers and dropboxes are often inaccessible distance-wise, sometimes hundreds of miles away, and distributed sparsely. In addition, states have been passing restrictive legislation in the past couple of years. Many states have limits or even bans on mail-in ballots, which reduces the already limited accessibility. Another thing contributing to indigenous disenfranchisement is stricter voter ID laws. Many reservations don’t have USPS-recognized street addresses, meaning their inhabitants are less likely to be able to obtain an ID. These issues all combine to drastically reduce voting accessibility. Voting rights for many Americans in the United States have a long history of progress, but for indigenous Americans, these modern issues mean the story is not over.

Works Cited

Carlisle Indian School Project: Carlisle Indian School, https://carlisleindianschoolproject.com/.

Asgarian, Roxanna. “The Native adoption case that could dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act, explained.” Vox, 20 February 2020, https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/2/20/21131387/indian-child-welfare-act-court-case-foster-care.

“Dakota Access Pipeline.” Environmental & Energy Law Program, https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2017/10/dakota-access-pipeline/.

Denchak, Melissa, and Courtney Lindwall. “The Keystone XL Pipeline: Everything You Need To Know.” NRDC, 15 March 2022, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline.

Goodwyn, Wade, and Juli Skinner. “Native American Adoption Law Challenged As Racially Biased.” NPR, 17 December 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/12/17/677390031/native-american-adoption-law-challenged-as-racially-biased.

Hoffman, Jan. “Who Can Adopt a Native American Child? A Texas Couple vs. 573 Tribes (Published 2019).” The New York Times, 5 June 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/health/navajo-children-custody-fight.html.

“ICWA History and Purpose.” dphhs, https://dphhs.mt.gov/cfsd/icwa/icwahistory.

“Kansas oil spill is Keystone pipeline's biggest ever, according to federal data.” NPR, 10 December 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/12/10/1142088091/kansas-oil-spill-is-keystone-pipelines-biggest-ever-according-to-federal-data.

Lee, Anna. “Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access Pipeline | Teacher Resource.” National Museum of the American Indian, https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/plains-treaties/dapl.

Mitchell, Henry. “Voting Rights for Native Americans | The Right to Vote | Elections | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress.” Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/voting-rights-for-native-americans/.

Sweren, Eliza, and Ethan Herenstein. “How Voter Suppression Laws Target Native Americans.” Brennan Center for Justice, 23 May 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-voter-suppression-laws-target-native-americans.