Northeast Judicial District's presiding judge hopes ICWA court could address foster care racial disparities
Apr. 12—NORTH DAKOTA — The Northeast Judicial District's presiding judge believes establishing an Indian Child Welfare Act court within his district could give more structure to existing procedures, and allow for a higher level of attention to the specific needs of Indigenous children and their families.
"I think it will be helpful," Judge Donovan Foughty said. "I think it's a more structured system to assist, as opposed to juvenile court."
A budget proposal that would help establish an ICWA court in the Northeast Judicial District is
making its way through the Legislature.
Foughty said he hopes the Legislature sees the wisdom in moving forward with the new court, which would be the first of its kind in North Dakota.
ICWA was established in the 1970s with the intent to keep Indigenous families together if possible and, when that is not an option, to find them placements in order of designated preference. Foughty believes that a specialized court would help fulfill the spirit of this act, which is already being followed, but could be optimized.
Currently, when issues arise regarding potential child deprivation or similar concerns, the matters all go through the same juvenile court system. By establishing a specialized court, Indigenous families' specific needs can be addressed more efficiently.
When deciding where this court would be located, Heather Traynor, with the North Dakota Supreme Court, said racial demographics and judicial buy-in were significant determining factors.
"Myself and someone from the ICWA Partnership Grant talked about the historical trauma and our input efforts up at the judicial retreat last year, and there seemed to be some interest," Traynor said. "So we reached out to Presiding Judge Foughty up there — he's definitely supportive of the work, along with Judge (Kari) Agotness as well."
Foughty said he has hope that the court's establishment will allow for a more efficient process that results in quicker permanent placements, as Traynor said has been the case in other states that have similar courts.
"Kids can get tied up in the system," Foughty said. "Sometimes things just drag out way, way too long, and things don't work out for reunification. Those are the tough calls that we have to deal with."
He hopes they can create a structure where, sooner rather than later, Native children who are in need of protection are either reunified with their families or a new, appropriate home is found for them.
His understanding is that the specialized court would allow them to work more closely with families and their tribal nations. Court staff, and all other parties involved in any ICWA case, would be educated on matters specific to Indigenous people.
Perhaps an ICWA court would allow the state to make some headway in decreasing the disproportionate rate of Indigenous youth in its foster care system, Foughty said.
Though they account for approximately 6% of the state's population, Indigenous youth make up 26% of its foster care population, Traynor said.
If approved, the ICWA court would be based in the Ramsey County Courthouse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brazil court majority favors tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies like X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet -- a law in effect since 2014 that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without judicial intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and four have yet to express an opinion. "We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom," Judge Flavio Dino said during Wednesday's session, broadcast online. Not doing so would be like "trying to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right of free movement," he added. Google, for its part, said in a statement that changing the rules "will not contribute to ending the circulation of unwanted content on the internet." - Coup plot - Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court's judges, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in the tightly-fought 2022 election against Bolsonaro, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des/nl
