One of my biggest critiques of law profs is that we are notoriously bad at communicating with the general public—and that extends to exactly what you’re talking about here.

Thank you so much, Doron! And yeah, I thought that was a perfect inscription for you 😃

Anyway, I know this a lengthy Article, but it was a true labor of love. I hope you will consider reading it, engaging with it, and sharing it amongst your networks!

Additionally, I am always open to presenting and/or writing more publicly consumable pieces on this topic. Feel free to reach out!

Although ICWA's opponents continue to argue the remedial nature of ICWA, ICWA is not an "antiquated statute" responding to purely historical acts. The destruction of American Indian families continues today, and ICWA provides process for Tribes and families alike.

Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) inspired this Article. Congress enacted ICWA to remedy the settler colonial violence of Indian child removal. Yet, today, settlers continue to assert a perceived right to Indian children as one that should be protected. This is incongruent with congressional goals.

Blending federal Indian law, family law, and constitutional law, I argue that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is an anti-colonial equitable statute not subject to equal protection attacks.