Pricing: Free

A Close Supreme Court Case Entangles Indigenous Children, Tribal Sovereignty, States’ Rights, and Race

Posted on by Scot Wilson

What began as a child custody lawsuit evolved into a lengthy hearing of four consolidated cases before the Supreme Court on November 9, 2022.1 The law in question is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Court’s eventual ruling on it could impact laws about race, states’ rights, and the sovereignty of Native American tribes.2

Why Did Congress Create the ICWA? What Does It Include?

Congress passed the ICWA in 1978 following over 100 years of federal policies such as American Indian boarding schools and the Indian Adoption Project. From the late 1800s through the middle-to-late 20th century, American Indian boarding schools aimed to assimilate Native American youth by forbidding tribal languages, beliefs, clothing, and names—a practice critics have labeled cultural genocide.3 From 1958 until 1967, the Indian Adoption Project operated with the stated goal of having Native American children adopted by white families.4

Extensive hearings and research prior to the ICWA’s passage showed that public and private child-welfare-oriented agencies had removed hundreds of thousands of American Indian children from their homes and placed 85 percent of them with non-tribal families.5 Few of these removals were due to abuse; most were based on social workers’ judgments that caretaking by extended family members (a common cultural practice in many Native American communities) demonstrated parental abandonment or that poverty (disproportionately present in Indian Country) amounted to neglect.6

In response, Congress passed the ICWA to stop a “white, middle-class standard” from dictating care decisions.7 The legislation set minimum standards for removing American Indian children (federal law uses the term “Indian” to refer to indigenous and Native American peoples of the United States).8 The ICWA also required states to notify tribes of an off-reservation American Indian child’s removal, and it set up a framework to give preferences for foster or adoption placements, first to extended family members, then to other tribal members, and subsequently to members of a different tribe—with some exceptions for “good cause.”9

ICWA arguments of supporters are that it has set a “gold standard” for other child welfare practices, both nationally and globally, especially with regard to its favoring of family placements.10 ICWA arguments from critics are that it places tribal needs over individual children’s needs by presuming that an American Indian tribe can always best serve the interest of an American Indian child.11 Other supporters contend that the ICWA especially benefits American Indian girls who are more likely than non-American Indian children to become human trafficking victims when placed in state foster homes.12 Still, state agencies and courts have often failed to enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act.13

READ part one of this blog’s series on the lead-up to the current Supreme Court case for more detailed historical context surrounding the ICWA.

Who Is Involved in the Current Case?

When a white Texas couple, Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, sought to foster and later adopt a 10-month-old Navajo and Cherokee boy, referred to in court as A.L.M., the ensuing legal battle led to a dispute over the boy’s half-sister, identified as Y.R.J.14 When the Brackeens learned that Y.R.J. would enter foster care, they filed for custody with the support of the child’s biological mother.15 An initial court ruling ordered shared custody between the Brackeens and Y.R.J.’s great aunt, who is of Navajo descent.16 Both parties appealed the decision, leading to the current Supreme Court case.17 In the meantime, Y.R.J., now 4, has lived with the Brackeens since infancy.18 According to Chad Brackeen, “It’s heartbreaking to us that there are laws out here that say it’s better for her to live in a tribal home, any tribal home … before she is allowed to stay in our home with her brother.”19

READ part two of this blog’s series on the lead-up to the current Supreme Court case for more information about the parties involved, the arguments at hand, and the prior legal steps of Brackeen v. Haaland.

What Could the Supreme Court Decide?

The case presents multiple legal questions that the Supreme Court may address.20 One is whether the ICWA can allow tribes to establish child placement preferences that state courts would have to follow.21 Texas argues that this unlawfully delegates a state’s legislative power to tribes, but President Joe Biden’s administration contends that the ICWA incorporates tribal preferences into federal law.22 Two related constitutional ICWA arguments also question state and federal authority: one asks if Congress’ Article I powers over Native Americans include child custody; the other asks if the ICWA violates the 10th Amendment’s “anticommandeering doctrine” by forcing state courts to implement a federal law.23

A separate legal question is over the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, notably included in the 14th Amendment, which prevents racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination.24 The tribes and the Biden administration claim that the ICWA treats American Indians politically, based on their status as sovereign tribes, but the challengers argue that the law treats indigenous children and prospective adoptive parents on the basis of race.25 The distinction is significant because if the law is based on race, it must pass the stringent legal test of strict scrutiny rather than a lower bar called rational basis.26

What Implications Could This Decision Have?

Challengers to the ICWA note that Native American children are disproportionately represented in the foster care system, and they argue that the ICWA’s placement preferences add additional barriers between American Indian children and loving adoptive homes.27 “There are Americans out there who are eager to help these children out, and the Indian Child Welfare Act says they are not allowed to because their skin is the wrong color,” said Timothy Sandefur, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.28 Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote, “Knowing the difficulties that await them if they attempt to adopt a Native child, many couples simply turn elsewhere at the outset.”29

Kate Fort, director of the Indian Law Clinic at Michigan State University, said the Supreme Court’s decision could “lead to a fundamental re-understanding of how Congress can or cannot pass laws for tribes.”30 She pointed to a case in Washington, where challengers are echoing Brackeen’s arguments in opposition to an alleged gambling monopoly by Native Americans.31 According to Mary Kathryn Nagle, a Native American rights attorney, “For Indian country, it is maybe one of the most important cases that has ever gone before the Supreme Court.”32 Nagle has noted the oil and gas experience of the Brackeens’ law firm, suggesting it as a motivating factor in its work on the case.33 Robert Miller, a member of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe, tribal court judge, and Arizona State University professor of federal American Indian law, extended concern more broadly, saying, “All of a sudden, lands would be owned by ‘a race of Indian people,’ not a tribal government. Your borders, your police laws, everything on the reservation would be in question. I’m not being hyperbolic. I am afraid of this case.”34

What Did the Supreme Court Hearing Reveal?

Given the number of parties involved, the Supreme Court scheduled an extended hearing of one hour and 40 minutes, but the arguments exceeded three hours.35 Texas’s lawyer argued that Congress lacks the authority to enlist state governments in enforcing the ICWA, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited other laws with federal impact on state custody hearings, such as those involving deployed service members.36 Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted possible commandeering with regard to recordkeeping duties and the “active efforts” that the ICWA requires states to use to avoid breaking up Native American families.37 Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed disagreement, suggesting that since the “active efforts” provision applies to both state and private entities, it doesn’t attempt to co-opt state government.38 While Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, along with Justice Elena Kagan, indicated support for upholding Congress’s authority over American Indian affairs as “plenary,” or near-absolute, Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts indicated concern that this could give Congress unlimited power over Native American law.39 In response, the Biden administration’s lawyer contended that Congress holds such power only if there is a rational relationship to Congress’ unique responsibilities regarding Native Americans.40

The “rational” standard seemed to draw criticism from justices who focused on race and equal protection questions, thereby implying a need for strict scrutiny in this case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Congress “couldn’t give a preference for white families for white children, for Black families for Black children, for Latino families for Latino children, for Asian families for Asian children.”41 The lawyer representing the Biden administration agreed that those decisions would be based on race but noted that the ICWA treated Native Americans as sovereign tribal entities rather than a racial group.42 Justice Kagan seemed to agree, noting the Supreme Court’s “long history of cases where we’ve understood legislation relating to the tribes as political.”43 Justice Sotomayor compared the ICWA to an existing international treaty that addresses child abduction and removal across national borders.44

Several justices questioned the racial/political distinction regarding the ICWA’s “third preference” that would place an American Indian child with a different tribe before a non-American Indian family.45 Justice Barrett said, “Let’s assume I agree with you that these are political classifications—this is just treating Indian tribes as fungible.”46 In response, the tribes’ lawyer noted that the Supreme Court could strike down that third preference alone and let the ICWA stand otherwise.47 He also said that the hypothetical transfer of an American Indian child from a tribe in Arizona to one in Maine “has never happened that we’ve been able to find or that counsel on the other side has been able to find.”48

Justice Gorsuch seemed to side with tribal lawyers over the implications of treating the ICWA as a race-based law, expressing concern that much of Title 25 of the U.S. Code (a section of laws governing Indian Country) wouldn’t survive an equal protection challenge.49 “There’ll be a lot that would be bitten out of Title 25,” said Justice Gorsuch. “We’d be busy for the next many years striking things down.”50

Justice Kavanaugh encapsulated the debate as a choice “between two fundamental and critical constitutional values.”51 On one side, Justice Kavanaugh described respecting tribal government and recognizing “the history of oppression and discrimination against tribes.” On the opposing side, he noted “the fundamental principle we don’t treat people differently on account of their race or ethnicity or ancestry.”52

How Does This Case Relate to Other Supreme Court Cases This Year?

Supreme Court observers have noted that many of the current term’s significant cases deal with race, either directly or indirectly.53 The Court has already heard cases on affirmative action and congressional redistricting (as related to the Voting Rights Act), and the December schedule features a case on the power of state legislatures over election law and voting restrictions (which often disproportionately affect people of color).54 Also in December, a case requesting a religious freedom exemption for a business that seeks to deny service to same-sex couples could see the Court discuss why that same exemption would or would not apply on racial lines.55

In the three cases the Supreme Court has already heard, one side was arguing for a “color-blind” application of the Constitution, to the perceived detriment of a minority group.56 In the Voting Rights Act case, for example, Alabama argued that a state cannot use race to benefit Black voters in drawing district maps.57 Supporters of a color-blind constitutional view see racial discrimination in all three cases, but opponents note that the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments were never intended to be race-neutral but rather to use race-conscious laws to protect newly freed slaves.58 Those on both sides of the debate have pointed to the current makeup of the Court as potentially receptive to a color-blind constitutional reading.59

READ this blog’s posts on the Voting Rights Act case and the affirmative action cases for further discussion about this term’s Supreme Court cases focused on race.

What May Happen Next?

The ICWA has drawn significant support, with briefs in support of the law coming from hundreds of tribes and tribal organizations, over two dozen child welfare and adoption organizations, a bipartisan group of 87 members of Congress, and more than 20 states (ten of which have created state laws that mirror or exceed the ICWA’s standards).60 States could bolster those laws if the Supreme Court narrowly strikes down portions of the ICWA for federal overreach.61 Tribal advocates have said they will continue to fight for American Indian children, regardless of the Court’s decision.62

Based on the hearing, Supreme Court observers have speculated that Justice Gorsuch, a tribal rights proponent, could join with the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents in upholding portions of the ICWA, but that the group of four seems unlikely to draw the needed fifth justice to their side.63 A 5-4 ruling could chart a middle path that would uphold portions of the ICWA, strike down others, and avoid some of the far-reaching implications of a more sweeping decision. But such an outcome remains speculative until the Court issues its decision around June 2023.64

Discussion Questions

  1. During the hearing, Justice Kagan said, “The first thing you need for self government is a functioning polity,” and that Congress clearly “thinks that this statute is critical to the continuing existence of the tribe as a political entity.”65 In response, the Brackeens’ lawyer said that placing a Native American child with a white family wouldn’t change the child’s membership or reduce the size of the tribe.66
    1. How important do you think it is for Native American tribes to be given first preference to foster and adopt children that could be considered tribal members? Why do you think that?
    2. How important do you think it is for Native American children to be raised by extended family members or other members of their tribe? Why do you think that?
  2. Should state governments, the federal government, or tribal governments have primary jurisdiction over Native American children? Why?
  3. Do you think the ICWA should stay in place as it currently exists? Consider the following questions:
    1. Do you think the ICWA infringes on states’ rights to run their own adoption and custody systems? Why or why not?
    2. Do you think that having the federal government make laws about American Indian children is the best way to protect tribal rights? Why or why not?
    3. Does it discriminate against families like the Brackeens if a Native American child’s extended family gets preference over them to foster or adopt? Why or why not?
    4. Does it discriminate against families like the Brackeens if a Native American child’s tribe gets preference over them to foster or adopt? Why or why not?
    5. Does it discriminate against families like the Brackeens if a Native American tribe receives preference over them to foster or adopt a Native American child from a different tribe? Why or why not?
  4. Read the following two quotes to determine with which you agree more: “The precedent of the Supreme Court is that Indian tribes are political groups of people, they are not racial groups of people,” Chrissi Ross Nimmo, the deputy attorney general of Cherokee Nation, told reporters last month. “Tribes determine citizenship … just like countries.”67 Matthew D. McGill, a lawyer for the people challenging the law, said the children at issue had made no political choices. “They are human beings,” he said. “They are citizens of the United States and the states in which they reside. They are persons within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. And they have liberty interests that the tribe cannot override simply by unilaterally enrolling them.”68
    1. Does giving preferential placement to tribes infringe on the liberty of American Indian children? Or would removing American Indian children from tribes do more to infringe on their liberty?
  5. The Brackeens are an Evangelical Christian couple.69 In a now-defunct blog, Jennifer Brackeen described religious inspiration for wanting to foster and adopt, and when it looked as though A.L.M. would be placed with a Navajo non-relative, Jennifer Brackeen wrote about how her family offered the boy access to their culture, which “he would not have had in his biological family.” By contrast, Sarah Kastelic, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, has said, “For a long time, non-Native people have been trying to ‘save’ Native children who don’t need saving.” Based on these quotes, consider the following question:
    1. Does having a religious motivation strengthen either party’s case? Why or why not?
  6. If you had final legal authority to determine the custody of now-four-year-old Y.R.J., how would you assign custody? To her great aunt of Navajo descent, to the Brackeens who adopted her half-brother, or to someone else? Would you prioritize any sort of shared custody? What factors most determined your decision?
  7. How concerned are you that this case could impact other laws about Native Americans? Why?
  8. Angelique EagleWoman, the director of the Native American Law and Sovereignty Institute at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, refers to the ICWA as “a remedial statute because it has been the U.S. government’s policy for hundreds of years to destroy the Native American family.”70
    1. Do you think Congress should pass laws aimed at remedying past historical injustices? Why or why not?
    2. Do you think the Constitution should be read as “color-blind,” even if that disadvantages groups that some laws, like the ICWA, were historically created to protect? Why or why not?

Additional Resources

WATCH the Brackeens and Mary Kathryn Nagle (a Cherokee lawyer) comment on the case.

LISTEN to the Supreme Court hearing of Haaland v. Brackeen and consolidated cases.

WATCH “Blood Memory: A Story of Removal and Return,” an episode of “America ReFramed.”71  It presents an in-depth, first-hand account of a woman who was removed from her tribe in the Indian Adoption era and sought out her Native American culture as an adult. For a preview, watch the trailer here.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Shuran Huang for The Texas Tribune
[1] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/closely-divided-court-scrutinizes-various-provisions-of-indian-child-welfare-act/
Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[2] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3720368-supreme-courts-sleeper-case-is-major-clash-over-native-american-adoptions/
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/08/1134668931/supreme-court-icwa
Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/11/8/23440460/supreme-court-brackeen-haaland-indian-child-welfare-act
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/11/07/icwa-supreme-court-arizona/
[3] Equal Justice Initiative: https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-cultural-genocide/
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/07/supreme-court-native-american-families-indian-child-welfare-act
Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[4] Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[5] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3720368-supreme-courts-sleeper-case-is-major-clash-over-native-american-adoptions/
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/08/1134668931/supreme-court-icwa
[6] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/11/07/icwa-supreme-court-arizona/
[7] The Economist: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/11/10/native-american-children-come-before-the-supreme-court
[8] ABA Journal: https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/supreme-court-to-consider-future-of-indian-child-welfare-act
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-376
[9] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/08/1134668931/supreme-court-icwa
[10] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3720368-supreme-courts-sleeper-case-is-major-clash-over-native-american-adoptions/
Native American Rights Fund: https://narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt/
Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/supreme-court-indian-child-welfare-erase-ancestry.html
Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/11/07/icwa-supreme-court-arizona/
[11] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-376
[12] Ibid.
[13] The Economist: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/11/10/native-american-children-come-before-the-supreme-court
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/07/supreme-court-native-american-families-indian-child-welfare-act
[14] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/07/supreme-court-native-american-families-indian-child-welfare-act
[15] Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/2022/11/7/23445212/supreme-court-native-american-icwa
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
[16] Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/2022/11/7/23445212/supreme-court-native-american-icwa
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/08/1134668931/supreme-court-icwa
[17] Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/2022/11/7/23445212/supreme-court-native-american-icwa
[18] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-race-and-ethnicity-africa-319ff13d4d5b45ee648aab2bb8ec361f
[19] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/08/1134668931/supreme-court-icwa
[20] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-376
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-376
[21] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/in-challenge-to-indian-child-welfare-act-court-will-weigh-the-rights-of-states-and-the-role-of-race/
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-376
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test
SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/in-challenge-to-indian-child-welfare-act-court-will-weigh-the-rights-of-states-and-the-role-of-race/
[27] Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[28] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
[29] Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[30] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
[31] Ibid.
[32] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3720368-supreme-courts-sleeper-case-is-major-clash-over-native-american-adoptions/
[33] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/videos-81e8f6644f4e4389a31f400f920073d1
[34] Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/2022/11/7/23445212/supreme-court-native-american-icwa
[35] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2022.html
USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/09/supreme-court-custody-native-american-children-icwa/8314156001/
[36] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135619252/supreme-court-hears-arguments-challenging-the-indian-child-welfare-act
[37] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/closely-divided-court-scrutinizes-various-provisions-of-indian-child-welfare-act/
[38] Ibid.
[39] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3727987-supreme-court-grapples-with-native-american-adoption-law/
SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/closely-divided-court-scrutinizes-various-provisions-of-indian-child-welfare-act/
[40] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/closely-divided-court-scrutinizes-various-provisions-of-indian-child-welfare-act/
[41] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/09/tribal-adopt-supreme-court-foster-care/
[42] USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/09/supreme-court-custody-native-american-children-icwa/8314156001/
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/09/tribal-adopt-supreme-court-foster-care/
[43] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/closely-divided-court-scrutinizes-various-provisions-of-indian-child-welfare-act/
[44] Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[45] Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/native-american-adoption-law-splits-supreme-court-conservatives
SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/closely-divided-court-scrutinizes-various-provisions-of-indian-child-welfare-act/
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/09/tribal-adopt-supreme-court-foster-care/
[46] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/09/tribal-adopt-supreme-court-foster-care/
[47] Ibid.
[48] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3727987-supreme-court-grapples-with-native-american-adoption-law/
[49] Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[50] Ibid.
[51] Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/native-american-adoption-law-splits-supreme-court-conservatives
[52] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/us/politics/supreme-court-native-american-adoptions.html
[53] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/the-court-is-poised-to-set-jurisprudence-on-race-for-generations-and-not-just-in-affirmative-action/
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/indian-child-welfare-law-is-third-high-court-color-blind-test
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-race-and-ethnicity-africa-319ff13d4d5b45ee648aab2bb8ec361f
Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/2022/11/7/23445212/supreme-court-native-american-icwa
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/07/supreme-court-native-american-families-indian-child-welfare-act
Source New Mexico: https://sourcenm.com/2022/03/21/the-platinum-standard-of-the-indian-child-welfare-act/
Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs: https://www.indian.senate.gov/news/press-release/schatz-murkowski-davids-cole-lead-bipartisan-bicameral-members-congress-amicus
[61] Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[62] Ibid.
[63] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/us/politics/supreme-court-native-american-adoptions.html
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/09/tribal-adopt-supreme-court-foster-care/
[64] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/us/politics/supreme-court-native-american-adoptions.html
SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/closely-divided-court-scrutinizes-various-provisions-of-indian-child-welfare-act/
Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/09/supreme-court-custody-native-american-children-icwa/8314156001/
[65] USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/09/supreme-court-custody-native-american-children-icwa/8314156001/
[66] Ibid.
[67] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-case-texas-couple-fighting-race-based-law-keep-adopted-native-child
[68] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/us/politics/supreme-court-native-american-adoptions.html
[69] Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/indian-child-adoption-scotus/
[70] The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/07/supreme-court-native-american-families-indian-child-welfare-act
[71] PBS: https://www.pbs.org/show/america-reframed/

 

Close Up’s Election Recap

Posted on by Scot Wilson

By the end of the day on Election Day, 47 percent of eligible voters in the United States had cast a ballot in the 2022 midterm elections.1 After a week of waiting with several races still uncalled, heading to a runoff, or requiring a recount, it looks like Republicans will have a slim majority in the House of Representatives and Democrats will keep control of the Senate.2

Governing with a divided Congress generally means that legislation moves more slowly, as a highly polarized legislature must reach agreement over issues that deeply divide the nation before President Joe Biden can sign anything into law. While the current Congress is likely to pass funding the government by its December 16 deadline, things might be much more difficult next October when the time comes to find the government again. In addition, newly elected representatives and senators must work together to raise the debt ceiling or the United States will no longer be allowed to legally borrow money to fund federal programs.3

The two parties are starting to lay out their priorities for the new 118th Congress. Some House Republicans are hoping to investigate the president and his son, Hunter Biden, believing Hunter’s business dealings have compromised the White House.4 Senate Democrats will continue to prioritize filling vacancies in the judiciary by confirming judges nominated by President Biden.5

TRACK House Election Results on CNN 

Beyond the congressional races that took place nationwide, 36 states and three territories held gubernatorial elections on November 8.6 In four races, the party holding the governorship flipped, with Democrats gaining control in three states and Republicans gaining control in one. New milestones were marked, as the largest number of women governors will take office next year, two of whom are serving with lieutenant governors who are also women—the first time women hold both of those positions at the same time.7

Ballots in 37 states included a total of 132 measures for voters to consider.8 A diverse set of initiatives affected elections and voter identification, and most states rejected measures to enhance ID requirements or reduce early voting. Recreational cannabis use was legalized in Maryland and Missouri but rejected in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas.9 In the five states where abortion access was on the ballot, voters added protections for abortion or rejected additional restrictions.10

Many political pundits and journalists have expressed surprise regarding the midterm outcomes. Weeks before the election, these commentators told Americans to get ready for a “red wave” of Republican victories.11 There were reasons for this argument—inflation is high, the party in power usually loses seats, President Biden is unpopular, and past polls have overrepresented Democratic support. However, it turns out high-quality polls (conducted by professional polling companies that are unaffiliated with a political party) were quite accurate this year, with the only significant miss in Florida where Republican support was underestimated.12

Party officials are still examining what succeeded and what failed in their campaign strategies, but some trends have emerged. Abortion access was important to many voters this year.13 Candidates who campaigned on overturning the 2020 election results and those who placed doubt in election security tended to lose or do more poorly than expected.14 In some key states with close races, “split-ticket” voters were willing to vote for Republicans in some races and Democrats in others. For example, voters in both New Hampshire and Nevada elected a Republican governor and a Democratic senator.15

National and state elected officials are just getting ready to start their terms next year, but attention is already starting to aim toward 2024. The Senate map currently looks more challenging for Democrats, Donald Trump has announced he is running for president again, and Republican leadership is already assessing the best campaign strategies to use in two years.16 In the meantime, those in power face governing a public divided over issues such as climate, the economy, and individual rights.

Discussion Questions

  1. Did the results of the midterm elections surprise you? Why or why not?
  2. If you had been able to vote in this election, how would you have voted and why?
  3. Which issues are the most important for elected officials to address in the next two years? How, if at all, do your newly elected officials plan to solve these issues?
  4. Young voters (aged 18-29) are the age group least likely to vote. This time around, voter turnout among young people was at its second highest level for a midterm election in the last 30 years.17 Why do you think so many young people voted this year?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: REUTERS/Marco Bello
[1] FiveThirtyEight: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/turnout-was-high-again-is-this-the-new-normal/
[2] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/midterm-election-results-updates-11-15-22/index.html
[3] Vox: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/11/16/23433281/congress-debt-ceiling-house-midterms-spending-cuts-lame-duck-session
[4] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/potential-next-house-oversight-chair-says-hes-ready-to-subpoena-hunter-biden/
[5] Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/12/democratic-senate-biden-judges-00066623
[6] National Governors Association: https://www.nga.org/governors/elections/
[7] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/us/politics/diverse-candidates-midterms.html
[8] New York Magazine: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/abortion-gambling-marijuana-2022s-big-ballot-initiatives.html
[9] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/elections-2022-marijuana-legalization-voting-rules-gun-rights-ballot-initiatives-states/
[10] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/09/politics/abortion-rights-2022-midterms
[11] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-beware-red-wave-coming-because-voters-know-not-better-off-biden-took-office
[12] The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/the-accurate-election-polls-that-no-one-believed
[13] The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/3737248-mellman-why-no-red-wave/
[14] Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-never-predicted-red-wave-voters-frightened-republicans-2022-11
[15] WBUR: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/11/16/split-ticket-voters-and-their-impact-on-the-latest-election
[16] The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3737570-republicans-divided-as-trump-kicks-off-2024-bid/
[17] CIRCLE. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/millions-youth-cast-ballots-decide-key-2022-races

 

Will the Supreme Court End Affirmative Action?

Posted on by Scot Wilson

On October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court heard two cases regarding the use of race in college admissions.1 Rulings on these affirmative action cases could force many universities to reshape their admissions processes.

The History of Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court

The present-day context of the term “affirmative action” grew from executive orders by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, which stated that government contractors should “take affirmative action” to ensure nondiscrimination in employment.3 After the idea expanded to education, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), a case dealing with a California medical school that had set aside 16 of 100 spots for minority applicants.4 A fractured Court ruled that schools could use race as one of several admissions criteria, but the rigid quota in this instance was impermissible.5

In 2003, the Supreme Court found that the University of Michigan’s points system was too broadly preferential to minority candidates.6 Simultaneously, the Court ruled that race could still be considered a factor in admissions if done so in the individualized manner used by the University of Michigan Law School.7 One of the named plaintiffs in the Michigan case went on to advocate for a ballot initiative banning the state’s public universities from considering race (the Court upheld the ban in 2014).8 To date, in the 10 states with policies to this effect, universities have attempted other methods of increasing minority enrollment.9 In reviewing a 2016 case out of Texas, the Court largely upheld its 2003 decisions.10

What Are the Current Legal Arguments Surrounding Affirmative Action?

The cases presently under consideration center on the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Harvard University.11 As a state institution, UNC is subject to the clause of the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection of the laws.12 That clause does not apply to Harvard as a private institution, but Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits racial discrimination in any recipient of federal funding—applies to both schools.13

The legal test that the Supreme Court uses in cases that involve equal protection and race is called strict scrutiny.14 To meet the burden, the schools must show that their policies serve a compelling government interest and use a narrowly tailored means to further that interest.15 In the Bakke decision, the Court ruled that addressing historical racial injustice was not a compelling government interest given its impact on individuals not responsible for that harm.16 However, in that case and all relevant rulings that have followed, the Court has cited the creation of a diverse student body as a compelling interest.17 In the affirmative action cases presently before the Court, the justices will again decide if diversity is a compelling enough interest to allow the schools to use race as a factor in admissions.18

Even if the Supreme Court continues to uphold diversity as a compelling interest, it must still answer the other question that strict scrutiny poses: are the methods used to gain diversity narrowly tailored? Previous rulings have said that meeting that standard requires a holistic, individual review of candidates in which race is not a determining factor, that the process doesn’t cause undue harm to nonminority candidates, and that no workable alternatives would serve the school’s goal.19

What Happened at the Supreme Court Hearing This Week?

During Monday’s hearings, a majority of justices expressed skepticism about whether the current cases meet strict scrutiny.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed to suggest that there were no means schools could use that would be sufficiently narrowly tailored when he asked, “What is your response to the simple argument that college admissions are a zero-sum game?”20 Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the need to explicitly list race to achieve diversity. Justice Roberts asked if Harvard could consider “what an applicant would say in an essay about having to confront discrimination growing up and how he or she did that?”21 The lawyer challenging Harvard indicated that such a method would be acceptable.22

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that UNC’s current methods are narrowly tailored since the school examines 40 different factors, thereby “looking at the full person.”23 Justice Elena Kagan expressed support for diversity as a compelling interest, saying, “I thought part of what it meant to be an American and to believe in American pluralism is that actually our institutions … are reflective of who we are as a people in all our variety.”24

LISTEN to the Supreme Court Hearing of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

LISTEN to the Supreme Court Hearing of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard

What’s Next?

If the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, how it does so could be significant. A finding that affirmative action policies violate Title VI would be more limited than a ruling finding a violation of the 14th Amendment.25 The latter, as a constitutionally based ruling, could have implications on voting rights and other policy areas.26

Leading up to the hearing, both supporters and opponents of affirmative action rallied in Washington, D.C.27 The rallies included affected university students who promised to continue their advocacy beyond the Supreme Court’s hearing and ruling.28 The Court will likely issue its decision next year.29

Discussion Questions

  1. Is it important and valuable for universities to have a diverse student body?
  2. Justice Kagan called universities “pipelines to leadership in our society.”30 Do you agree with this idea? Why or why not? Does developing effective leaders require a diverse student body?
  3. President Joe Biden’s administration argued that it was critical for national security that service academies and universities provide the military a racially diverse officer corps, citing racial tensions and violence during the Vietnam War when the officer corps was largely white and the enlisted force was largely made up of minorities.31 In the words of White House officials, “At present, it’s not possible to achieve that diversity without race-conscious admissions.”32
    • Do you agree with this idea? Why or why not?
    • Is diversity in the military a compelling enough government interest to warrant affirmative action policies at universities? Why or why not?
  4. Is there any fair, narrowly tailored way for universities to execute an affirmative action program?
  5. During the hearing, Justice Alito cast doubt on whether any means used to execute affirmative action programs can be narrowly tailored, saying, “Two people are in a race, and you give a plus factor to one of the runners, so that runner gets to start … five yards closer to the finish line. The one who doesn’t get that plus factor is disadvantaged, right?”33
    • Do you agree with this reasoning? Why or why not?
    • Do you think this analogy fits well with college admissions? Why or why not?
  6. During the hearing, some justices asked about other programs to address diversity, such as offering significant financial aid or dedicated outreach to low-income students and those who would be the first generation of their family to attend college.34 University lawyers argued that they have tried these methods with less success than the race-conscious policies currently in use.35
    • Is socioeconomic status a good metric to use to achieve diversity? Why or why not?
    • Do you think these or other race-neutral methods can ensure an effectively diverse student body?
    • In order to effectively ensure diversity, do you think colleges must explicitly consider race? Why or why not?
  7. Consider the following two quotes from Supreme Court justices:
    • “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” —Chief Justice Roberts, 200736
    • “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” —Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 201437
    • Which of these quotes do you think is most relevant to the issue of affirmative action?
    • Which justice do you agree with more? Why?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images
[1] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-hears-challenges-affirmative-action-college-admissions-rcna54564
[2] Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/28/supreme-court-affirmative-action-end-00063931
[3] Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/learn-origins-term-affirmative-action-180959531/
[4] Ibid.
[5] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
[6]. Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/Gratz_v._Bollinger; Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-516
[7] Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/; Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241
[8] Center for Individual Rights: https://www.cir-usa.org/case/gratz-v-bollinger-grutter-v-bollinger/gratz-grutter-frequently-asked-questions/; NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/22/305850221/supreme-court-affirms-ban-on-race-conscious-college-admissions; Time: https://time.com/71871/supreme-court-affirmative-action-michigan/
[9] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/bbe0f81d2b4ef63102d749879c045a10; Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-college-admissions-affirmative-action-196ab930c799bcdc8b2a4a220641dd48; Atlanta Journal-Constitution: https://www.ajc.com/news/local-education/court-ruling-changed-georgia-approach-race-based-college-admissions/vT9wYxSGa0kCv7EqkdczdK/; Century Foundation: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/what-can-we-learn-from-states-that-ban-affirmative-action/?agreed=1; James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/10/did-you-know-eight-states-ban-racial-preferences-in-college-admissions/; Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/31/supreme-court-affirmative-action-ban-00064058
[10] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981; Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/23/us-supreme-court-rules-fisher-case-involving-ut-au/
[11] CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/03/politics/affirmative-action-supreme-court-harvard-north-carolina/index.html
[12] CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/03/politics/affirmative-action-supreme-court-harvard-north-carolina/index.html; Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707
[13] Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/elite-college-admissions-cases-put-justices-on-collision-course
[14] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny
[15] Ibid.
[16] CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/27/politics/affirmative-action-supreme-court-1978-bakke-harvard-north-carolina/index.html; Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23405267/affirmative-action-supreme-court-race-harvard-unc-chapel-hill
[17] Ibid.
[18] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199; Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707
[19] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241; Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981
[20] Georgia Public Broadcasting: https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/10/31/supreme-courts-conservatives-appear-skeptical-of-affirmative-action-in-admissions
[21] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-hears-challenges-affirmative-action-college-admissions-rcna54564
[22] Ibid.
[23] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-college-admissions-affirmative-action-196ab930c799bcdc8b2a4a220641dd48
[24] Ibid.
[25] Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/elite-college-admissions-cases-put-justices-on-collision-course
[26] Ibid.
[27] Georgia Recorder: https://georgiarecorder.com/2022/10/31/affirmative-action-supporters-rally-outside-the-u-s-supreme-court/; Harvard Crimson: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/31/duel-rallies-admissions-dc-scotus/
[28] Harvard Crimson: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/31/duel-rallies-admissions-dc-scotus/
[29] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/affirmative-action-appears-in-jeopardy-after-marathon-arguments/
[30] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-college-admissions-affirmative-action-196ab930c799bcdc8b2a4a220641dd48
[31] Georgia Public Broadcasting: https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/10/31/supreme-courts-conservatives-appear-skeptical-of-affirmative-action-in-admissions; SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/affirmative-action-appears-in-jeopardy-after-marathon-arguments/
[32] Georgia Public Broadcasting: https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/10/31/supreme-courts-conservatives-appear-skeptical-of-affirmative-action-in-admissions
[33] Ibid.
[34] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/affirmative-action-appears-in-jeopardy-after-marathon-arguments/
[35] Ibid.
[36] Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/learn-origins-term-affirmative-action-180959531/
[37] Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/28/supreme-court-affirmative-action-end-00063931

 

Civic Education In Georgia

During this #CloseUpConversations webinar Close Up and an expert panel talks about the Importance of Civic Education in Georgia. Hear from Georgia State Senator Chuck Payne, Georgia Center for Civic Engagement CEO Dr. Randell E. Trammell, CIRCLE senior researcher Kelly Siegel-Stechler, and Dr. Victoria A. Lockhart of Newton High School.

 

 

 

 

 

Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness: Too Much, Not Enough, Just Right, or Beyond the President’s Authority?

Posted on by Scot Wilson

In August, President Joe Biden’s administration announced a student loan forgiveness plan which would cancel up to $10,000 in debt for most borrowers and up to $20,000 for some borrowers.1 Current federal student loan borrowers who earn less than $125,000 per year (less than $250,000 per household) can have up to $10,000 forgiven and those who received Pell Grants can have up to $20,000 forgiven.2 Pell Grants are a type of federal financial aid for undergraduates who demonstrate the most need.3 As many as 43 million Americans could see their debt reduced through this plan.4

The plan is currently being challenged in court by several Republican state attorneys general. These states are arguing that President Biden is overstepping his authority and that the plan may harm some private lenders “because it would prompt millions of borrowers … to consolidate their debt into the main federal student program.”5

In addition, 22 Republican governors have argued that the plan is unfair to those who have already paid off their debt. “For many borrowers, they worked hard, made sacrifices, and paid off their debt,” wrote the governors. “For many others, they chose hard work and a paycheck rather than more school and a loan. Americans who did not choose to take out student loans themselves should certainly not be forced to pay for the student loans of others.”6

Democrats, including members of the Biden administration, have pushed back against these arguments. “Let’s be clear about what they would be trying to do here: The same folks who voted for a $2 trillion tax giveaway for the rich and had hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own small business loan debt forgiven would be trying to keep millions of working middle-class Americans in mountains of debt,” said White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan.7

However, the Biden administration is also receiving pushback from members of its own party who believe the plan does not go far enough. For example, campaign strategist Angelo Greco said, “It’s a small, small addition. … I just don’t see how anyone who has been pushing for at least $50,000 and citing all the racial equity stats as motivation to do it can be thrilled about something that scratches the surface of a systemic crisis.”8

“We think roughly 20 million people will be debt-free,” said Thomas Gokey, an organizer with the Debt Collective. “For many others this will do very little. We have more work to do.”9 For his part, Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called the move “a big deal” but added he believes “we have got to do more” to make higher education more affordable, such as making public colleges tuition free.10

It is not clear how the courts will rule on the various challenges being raised against the student loan forgiveness plan, but it is clear that this issue will be on voters’ minds during the midterms and other elections to come.

Join Us! On November 16, Close Up will host a free online panel discussion about student loan forgiveness and the costs of higher education (register here). The webinar will be followed by a reflection session for students from across the country to share their views on this pressing issue (register here).

Discussion Questions

  1. Are you worried about the costs of college? Why or why not?
  2. Do you support President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan? Why or why not?
  3. Do you think the federal government should take other steps relating to the cost of college? If so, what actions would you support?

 

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Paul Morigi/Getty Images
[1] The College Investor: https://thecollegeinvestor.com/40628/president-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness/
[2] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-application-biden-relief-plan/
[3] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/25/politics/pell-grant-student-loan-forgiveness/index.html
[4] Axios: https://www.axios.com/2022/09/20/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-legal-challenges
[5] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-is-on-hold-what-borrowers-need-to-know.html
[6] Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-governors-block-student-debt-relief-states-millions-would-benefit-2022-9
[7] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/republicans-may-try-to-block-student-loan-forgiveness.html
[8] The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3614316-progressives-hail-biden-for-action-on-student-loans/
[9] Ibid.
[10] Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/08/24/progressives-praise-bidens-student-debt-cancellation-as-gop-and-moderates-voice-concern/?sh=3ab17b8074da

 

Despite White House Push for Updated COVID-19 Boosters, Americans Are Slow to Roll Up Their Sleeves

Posted on by Scot Wilson

Last Wednesday, the Food and Drug Administration expanded eligibility for updated COVID-19 booster shots to include children as young as five. Prior to this announcement, the revised Pfizer vaccine was restricted to those 12 and older and the Moderna vaccine was restricted to those 18 and older.1

These updated booster shots address the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of the omicron variant that first appeared in November 2021. They also address the original strain of the COVID-19 virus and have been shown to be highly effective in combating the worst effects of the virus. While widespread vaccination continues to be a critical element in White House efforts to combat the pandemic, many Americans young and old have not received all of the booster shots recommended to them.

The updated booster shots have had a slow uptake nationally among both adults and children, proving to be a significant challenge to the pandemic strategy of President Joe Biden’s administration. The administration continues to grapple with dwindling public interest and shrinking funding for the pandemic and COVID-19 booster shot response.

While the initial vaccines were highly sought after and widely distributed, successive boosters have received significantly less public interest. Of the 226 million Americans who completed the initial round of vaccination, only about half received at least one booster shot. Since the updated booster shots were authorized in August, only around 13 million Americans have received them.2 This may be in large part because Americans are unaware of the existence of this revised booster. According to one survey, half of adults said they had heard little or nothing about the new booster shots.3

Many families are particularly hesitant to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only about a third of children aged 5-11 have received an initial round of vaccination.4 Within that group, only about 16 percent of children received the original booster shot, which became available to them in May.5 Public health officials are working to increase this number and to encourage parents to vaccinate their children with the revised booster.

Weekly Increase in the Number of US Children Ages 5-11Recieving their Initial Covid-19 Vaccination”

The Biden administration has prioritized vaccination amidst its struggle to secure funding for the continued fight against COVID-19. This summer, the administration requested that Congress allocate billions of dollars to pay for more vaccines, testing, therapeutics, and research to combat future variants.6

In March, House Democrats dropped a COVID-19 aid package from a broader spending package to fund the government after some in their caucus disagreed with plans to pay for it by redirecting money set aside for some state governments to address their pandemic needs as part of the American Rescue Plan. A few weeks later, a smaller bipartisan deal came together in the Senate, but it ultimately collapsed when Republicans insisted the chamber vote on keeping pandemic border restrictions in place.7

To date, Congress has been unable to pass a new pandemic relief package. White House officials instead decided to repurpose federal COVID-19 funds meant for tests and protective equipment in order to supply more vaccines and antiviral pills.8 Around $10 billion in funds from the Department of Health and Human Services was rerouted, and about half of it was used to purchase vaccines for Americans ahead of a possible winter wave of virus cases. These reallocated funds were used to buy over 170 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine—enough to vaccinate most of the roughly 225 million Americans who have had an initial round of vaccination.9 Despite the Biden administration pouring resources into vaccination efforts, the updated COVID-19 booster shot response by Americans will of rolling up their sleeves remains to be seen.

Discussion Questions

  1. What are some additional reasons that Americans who received the initial COVID-19 vaccine might not be getting the booster and updated booster shots?
  2. Given the low fatality rates among children, should the federal government prioritize efforts to get children vaccinated and boosted? If not, which groups should it prioritize and why?
  3. Do you support increased spending on vaccination efforts? Why or why not?

 

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Sarah ReingeWirtz/Medianews Group/ Los Angeles Daily News Via Getty Images
[1] Center for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/s1012-COVID-19-Vaccines.html
[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/15/us/politics/covid-booster-shots.html
[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/30/health/omicron-booster-covid.html
[4] American Academy of Pediatrics: https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends
[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/politics/covid-booster-shots-kids.html
[6] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccines-updated-boosters-new-ad-campaign-biden-administration/
[7] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/20/gop-balks-covid-funding-after-biden-declares-pandemic-is-over/
[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/vaccines-white-house-funding.html
[9] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/15/us/politics/covid-booster-shots.html

 

Does Religious Freedom Guarantee Abortion Access?

Posted on by Scot Wilson

On October 6, three Jewish women filed a lawsuit against the state of Kentucky claiming that the state’s current abortion restrictions are vague and violate their religious freedom.1 Kentucky’s state legislature passed a series of bills in 2019 that banned abortion from fertilization, only allowing for abortion if the mother’s life is in danger. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.2

These laws were allowed to go into effect after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). That decision overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), both of which previously found that access to abortion was a constitutional right. Because of the Dobbs decision, access to and restrictions on abortion are now in the hands of the states.3

The women in the Kentucky lawsuit all argue that the abortion ban violates Jewish law and practices and forces pregnant Jews to conform to another set of religious beliefs. For over a millennium, Jewish scholars have developed answers to questions regarding when life starts, reproductive rights, and abortion. The majority of Jewish denominations teach that a fetus becomes a human life at birth; therefore, a fetus does not have the same rights as a person.Jewish beliefs about abortion state that the life and health of the mother (frequently understood to include mental and emotional health) must take precedence over that of the fetus.4

The case claims that Kentucky law forces Jewish women who screen their pregnancies and in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos for genetic anomalies to violate their religious beliefs by continuing unviable pregnancies. The case also states that families are harmed financially by requiring storage for embryos indefinitely.5

Jessica Kalb, who has struggled with infertility, has nine embryos currently frozen from her previous round of IVF and wants another child. However, the embryos have not been screened to see if they are compatible with life, and under Kentucky law, it is unclear if disposing of incompatible embryos would be illegal. She has decided not to go forward with another pregnancy.

Lisa Sobel’s daughter is also a result of IVF, and the Sobel family wants more children. However, she had a very difficult first pregnancy and worries what might happen in the second. “At this point, I’m scared to try and have another child,” she said. “If I miscarry, I could bleed out before the doctors and the lawyers could decide whether or not they could treat me or if I needed to be prosecuted, and that’s not a risk I’m willing to take for myself or my child or my husband.”6

Finally, Sarah Baron claims in the lawsuit that as an Ashkenazi Jew, she has a higher risk of passing on genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs disease, which is always fatal.7 The suit states that without the option of abortion, nonviable pregnancies cause psychological harm to the mother and cannot be terminated as is expected under Jewish law.8 The case is scheduled to be heard on November 15.

In response, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron indicated that he would defend the law. “The General Assembly has made it clear that Kentucky will protect unborn life and these laws are an important part of the commonwealth,” he said on October 6.9 Cameron is running for governor in 2023 and his platform addresses his support for ending abortion in the state.

Other states’ abortion restrictions are also being challenged in court by Jewish communities. In Indiana, Hoosier Jews for Choice are plaintiffs in a case suing the state over its abortion restrictions, and in Florida, a synagogue is taking the issue to court.10 Also in Florida, three rabbis joined a suit that includes a United Church of Christ reverend, a Unitarian Universalist minister, an Episcopal Church priest, and a Buddhist lama in order to challenge the restrictions in the state.11 It is likely that other organizations in states where abortion is restricted will follow.

Discussion Questions

  1. Kentucky law states that human life starts at fertilization. Does it matter if that law is at odds with a person’s deeply held religious beliefs? Why or why not?
  2. IVF is a medical intervention that relies on extracting and fertilizing multiple eggs at a time, knowing that not all will be used. What should be done with the unused embryos?
  3. Deeply held religious beliefs have granted individuals and organizations permission to refuse vaccination compliance or to refuse to cover certain types of health care for their employees. How is the Kentucky case similar to or different from those religious arguments?

 

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion about abortion and religious freedom with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Bruce Schreiner/AP
[1] Sobel et al. v. Cameron: https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/sobel-complaint-against-cameron-1665079005.pdf; Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/10/10/kentucky-abortion-law-2022-jewish-lawsuit/
[2] Kentucky Legislature: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/19RS/hb148/bill.pdf
[3] Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
[4] National Council of Jewish Women: https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf; Rabbi Susan Grossman: https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/20052010/grossman_partial_birth.pdf
[5] Sobel et al. v. Cameron: https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/sobel-complaint-against-cameron-1665079005.pdf
[6] Lexington Herald-Leader: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article266756996.html
[7] Boston Medical Center: https://www.bmc.org/genetic-services/jewish-genetic-disease-screening
[8] Sobel et al. v. Cameron: https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/sobel-complaint-against-cameron-1665079005.pdf
[9] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/jewish-women-cite-faith-contesting-kentucky-abortion-ban-91135292
[10] Indy Star: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2022/09/08/indiana-abortion-law-runs-afoul-of-religious-freedom-restoration-act-lawsuit-claims/66888195007/; NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/15/1105229512/florida-abortion-law-synagogue-lawsuit-15-weeks
[11] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-clergy-lawsuits-say-abortion-ban-violates-religious-freedom-2022-08-02/

 

The Voting Rights Act Goes to Court, Again

Posted on by Scot Wilson

On October 4, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Merrill v. Milligan. In that case, the Court is considering whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should apply to Alabama’s recent congressional redistricting. One section of the Voting Rights Act requires that states provide minority voters with “an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.”1

Close Up Classroom Resources

Gerrymandering: Should the federal government mandate that states end partisan gerrymandering?

What Are the Details of the Case?

Alabama has a large Black population but that population does not have a significant impact on the election of Alabama’s members of the House of Representatives.2 Only one of Alabama’s seven districts is set up so that minority voters have the potential to sway the election. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect congressional candidates of their choice.3 As NPR reports, ”Black voters are either concentrated in that district so they are a supermajority there or spread out across the remaining six districts so that their voting power is diluted. It’s a practice known as packing and cracking.”4

A summary of the case’s road to the Supreme Court from Axios states:

  • A three-judge lower court, including two appointees of former President Donald Trump, found in January that Alabama’s congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. “The appropriate remedy is a congressional redistricting plan that includes either an additional majority-Black congressional district, or an additional district in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice,” the judges said in a 225-page ruling.
  • The state of Alabama asked the Supreme Court to put the lower court ruling on hold while it appealed, which the justices allowed, the Associated Press reports.5

WATCH: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Alabama Racial Gerrymandering Case, from NBC News

What Were Alabama’s Arguments?

The state of Alabama argues that its districts are legal and that they were drawn in a race-neutral manner.6 During oral argument, the attorney for Alabama argued that there are many possible configurations of the congressional districts, and that computer models did not necessarily produce a map that was more favorable to minority voters. They stated that even the “plaintiffs’ [the other side’s] own witnesses testified about millions of possible race-neutral plans that, like Alabama’s plan, have no more than one majority-minority district. Plaintiffs were able to produce comparator plans with more majority-Black districts only by starting with a ‘nonnegotiable’ racial target and backfilling with other redistricting criteria after that target had been hit.”7

What Were the Plaintiffs’ Arguments?

Deuel Ross, senior counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued for the plaintiffs. “There is nothing race-neutral about Alabama’s map,” he said. “The Black Belt is a historic and extremely poor community of substantial significance. Yet Alabama’s map cracks that community and allows [a] white block voting to deny Black voters the opportunity to elect representation responsive to their needs.”8

Ross also argued that the plaintiffs were not asking for guarantees that Black voters would be a majority or the major force in any district. Instead, they were asking for a plan that drew Black voters in districts where they are given “at least a fair chance—not even a guaranteed chance—to elect their candidates of choice in a second district.”9

WATCH: A Starting Point’s Divide & Conquer

What’s Next?

While the Supreme Court has already heard the case, it is unlikely that its decision will be handed down before June 2023.

Discussion Questions

  1. What have you learned about redistricting in Alabama, gerrymandering, and the Voting Rights Act?
  2. What other issues relating to elections and voting do you think are important to discuss?
  3. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule in this case? Why?
  4. Do you believe that the U.S. system of campaigns, elections, and voting is fundamentally fair? Why or why not?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: William Hennessy, featured in SCOTUSblog
[1] Axios: https://www.axios.com/2022/10/04/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-merrill-milligan
[2] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/conservative-justices-seem-poised-to-uphold-alabamas-redistricting-plan-in-voting-rights-act-challenge/
[3] National Conference of State Legislatures: https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2022/07/26/-supreme-court-to-decide-alabama-redistricting-case.aspx
[4] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/04/1126804414/supreme-court-voting-rights-act
[5] Axios: https://www.axios.com/2022/10/04/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-merrill-milligan
[6] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-hears-alabama-redistricting-case/
[7] National Conference of State Legislatures: https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2022/07/26/-supreme-court-to-decide-alabama-redistricting-case.aspx
[8] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/04/1126804414/supreme-court-voting-rights-act
[9] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-hears-alabama-redistricting-case/

 

Understanding the Iranian Hijab Protests

Posted on by Scot Wilson

In recent days, Iran has been gripped by a series of mass protests that have gained international attention. The protests, largely led by women, are somewhat unprecedented. While both protest and women’s participation in protests in Iran are not new, the protests of the past two weeks are remarkable as the first of such scale specifically directed by Iranian women and centered on women’s civil rights in the country.1

The Iran hijab protests began in response to revelations that an Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini, had died in custody of the nation’s “morality police,” an arm of the Iranian government that is responsible for enforcing religious law in the country. Amini had been arrested for refusing to wear a hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women to conceal their hair. The precise circumstances of Amini’s death are unclear. The Iranian government maintains that she died of a heart attack while in a coma at a hospital in the capital city of Tehran, but protesters and critics argue that she was in a coma as a result of beatings and torture endured while in police custody.2

Understanding the Iranian Regime

In 1979, Iran experienced a revolution which installed Islamic religious leaders as the head of its government supported by opposition to Western interference in the country. The Iranian theocracy (a religious government) is an authoritarian regime led by a council of religious elders headed by the supreme leader. The supreme leader has ultimate authority over the military of Iran as well as the civilian government. Under Iran’s constitution, there is a legislature, a court system, and a president, but the supreme leader overrides all of those government bodies and is responsible for appointing most of the country’s leadership. The supreme leader holds office for life, with the current one, Ali Khamenei, having been in power since 1989.3

Iran has a culture that dates back to ancient Persia and to this day is among the most powerful nations in the Middle East. Unlike many of its neighbors where the majority religion is Sunni Islam, Iran’s dominant religion is Shia Islam, a distinct sect. Despite the theocratic government enforcing religious laws on Iranian society, Iran is actually among the most developed and cosmopolitan nations in the region and its people maintain a complex relationship with Western culture and influences. Throughout the regime’s history, the clash of theocratic rule with secular (non-religious) interests and a desire for reform in the country has led to unrest and political turmoil. Nevertheless, the theocratic government has managed to maintain its control.4

The U.S. Response to the Hijab Protests in Iran

Hijab protests have been spreading and growing in size across Iran, a common sight being that of women burning their hijabs, dancing in the streets, and calling for freedom and the death of the supreme leader. The government has responded severely. Journalists reporting on the hijab protests have been jailed, hundreds of Iranian women have been beaten in the streets and arrested, and at least 40 people have been killed5.

The last major period of unrest in Iran occurred in 2009. At the time, President Barack Obama’s administration (in which now-President Joe Biden served as vice president) was hesitant to publicly support the protests. However, the current Biden administration has made its support clear following a speech given by President Biden to the United Nations. The United States has since imposed sanctions on members of Iran’s morality police and is making efforts to provide satellite and internet services to Iranian citizens following a government shutdown of the country’s telecommunications.6

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you believe it is the obligation of the United States to provide support to the Iranian protesters?
  2. Should the United States involve itself in the internal affairs of any country? What kinds of events, if any, should necessitate U.S. involvement?
  3. Given the United States’ involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War and increasing tensions with China, do you feel the United States runs any risk of creating additional conflict by publicly supporting the Iranian protesters? Why or why not? What options should or should not be used by the United States in Iran?
  4. In 2009, the Obama administration avoided public support for protesters in part because President Obama was pursuing a nuclear weapons agreement with Iran (known as the Iran nuclear deal) and in part because the administration feared that support for the protesters would actually undermine their cause, as the regime could more easily point to Western interference as the real motive behind the unrest. The Iran nuclear deal was officially ended by President Donald Trump and there is little chance of it being revived. Do you feel that there is still a risk for the protesters in receiving the Biden administration’s support? Why or why not?

Related Posts

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Ozan Köse/AFP/Getty Images
[1] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/middleeast/women-iran-protests-hijab.html
[2] Al-Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/between-us/2022/9/27/iran-protests-mahsa-aminis-death
[3] PBS: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/inside/govt.html
[4] Yale University: https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/persian-paradox-iran-much-more-modern-you-think
[5] United Nations: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1128111#:~:text=She%20fell%20into%20a%20coma,circumstances%20surrounding%20Ms.%20Amini’s%20death.
[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/us/politics/biden-iran-protesters.html

 

The Water Crisis in Jackson, Mississippi

Posted on by Scot Wilson

AP Photo/Steve HelberOn August 29, 2022, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves declared a state of emergency for Jackson, the state capital, which was in the midst of an ongoing water crisis.1 Heavy rainfall caused the Pearl River and Ross Barnett Reservoir to flood, which in turn overwhelmed two water treatment plants that were already strained.2 Low water pressure and contamination left the city of 150,000 people—the largest in the state—without safe, reliable running water.3

The lack of pressure cut off thousands of homes from the city’s water supply.4 No water flowed from faucets, showers, or toilets. Residents of Jackson who did have pressure found their water to be unusable and unsafe. “The water that’s coming out of my kitchen sink smells like fresh sewage,” said Carey Wooten, who lives in Jackson with her two children. “As soon as you turn it on, it hits you right in the face. It’s horrible.”5  The Mississippi State Department of Health issued a boil-water notice, advising residents to not use their tap water. Lines stretched for blocks as residents waited to receive limited supplies of bottled water across the city.6

Graphic by Bethany Atkinson

Only a Matter of Time

The August flooding didn’t create the Jackson, Mississippi water crisis. Instead, it exacerbated systemic problems that residents have been dealing with for years. There have been ongoing boil-water notices issued after storm events, leading to distrust by residents who feel that they are not receiving the proper services that should be guaranteed by the city.7 For years, officials have routinely warned that “pregnant people and children under five” should not drink the tap water due to elevated levels of contaminants like lead.8 Runoff from the recent flooding has only increased the contamination concerns and scope of this problem. “We’ve been going it alone for the better part of two years when it comes to the Jackson water crisis,” said Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba. “I have said on multiple occasions that it’s a not a matter of if our system would fail, but a matter of when our system would fail.”9

The Role of Race in the Jackson Water Crisis

Advocates argue that structural racism is at the root of the water crisis, stretching back decades to “white flight” out of the city. “This is a deep seated, decades-long in the making kind of situation,” said Arielle King, a lawyer and environmental justice advocate. “I think the history of racial segregation and redlining in this country have deeply contributed to the environmental injustices we see right now.”10 

The population of Jackson has declined more than 20 percent in the last 40 years, a trend which started with an exodus of wealthier white people to the suburbs after the city began integrating its public schools.11 Jackson is now approximately 83 percent Black, and nearly one in four residents live at or below the federal poverty line.12

These demographic shifts have had compounding effects. White flight left Jackson with lower tax revenues, as people of higher socioeconomic status no longer contributed to the city. Less money meant fewer investments in public resources. Even though upgrades to aging, underperforming infrastructure like the city’s water treatment plants were long overdue, nothing was done to improve them.13 A total breakdown of the system was inevitable after decades of deterioration and delay. The flooding in August was the breaking point that took an already vulnerable situation and made it worse.

READ: “‘A Profound Betrayal of Trust’: Why Jackson’s Water System is Broken”

Some argue that structural racism both created this crisis and is responsible for the continued inaction by local and state governments. For example, policy experts at the centrist Brookings Institution wrote, “Jackson is a city with one of the largest shares of Black people in America, in the Blackest state in the union. Ideally, infrastructure serves as a shared foundation for economic, environmental, and public health between different neighborhoods and municipalities; however, infrastructure is often poorly maintained or intentionally overlooked in particular places, leading to a lack of access, affordability, and safety for many communities of color.”14

Officials estimate that it would cost at least $1 billion to fix Jackson’s water infrastructure, with even more money needed to properly maintain it.15 Jackson cannot pay for this on its own, and the state of Mississippi has not allocated money for the repairs. Plus, the wealthy white suburbs that surround Jackson do not share a sense of urgency or obligation to help a community that isn’t theirs.16 Some have questioned if this would even be an issue if Jackson were a predominately white community, wondering just how bad things have to get for something to finally be done.

Partisanship also plays a key role, as Jackson is a heavily Democratic city in a Republican-led state. While the city blames the state for the lack of proper funding, some state leaders have criticized the Jackson city government for “mismanaging” the treatment plant for years.17  With little political willpower by the state to provide funding, Jackson is caught in a cycle of suffering.

President Joe Biden has directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help Jackson, and Mississippi is set to receive $429 million from the bipartisan infrastructure law, but still more is needed to repair the water system, rebuild trust, and truly solve this problem.18

Discussion Questions

  1. The Jackson, Mississippi water crisis has been compared to that of Flint, Michigan, which began in 2014. Are you familiar with what happened in Flint, or have you heard of any other issues like it?
  2. Do you believe structural racism has played a role in the response to this crisis (or lack thereof)? If so, in what ways? If not, why not?
  3. Do you think the state government has a responsibility to fix the water system in Jackson? How involved do you think the federal government should be, if at all?
  4. What public services do you think are most vital for a community to thrive? Should some be prioritized over others?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: AP Photo/Steve Helber
[1] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mississippi-governor-declares-state-emergency-end-jackson-water-crisis-rcna45470
[2] PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/flooding-exacerbates-water-treatment-plant-crisis-in-jackson-mississippi
[3] Twitter: https://twitter.com/tatereeves/status/1564652267210407939
[4] Mississippi Today: https://mississippitoday.org/2021/03/24/why-jacksons-water-system-is-broken/
[5] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/science-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-mississippi-tate-reeves-5d51e0f19e923756f99a0abc3ee0f8b9
[6] Vox: https://www.vox.com/2022/8/31/23329604/jackson-mississippi-water-crisis
[7] Mississippi Today: https://mississippitoday.org/2021/03/24/why-jacksons-water-system-is-broken/
[8] Ibid.
[9] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mississippi-governor-declares-state-emergency-end-jackson-water-crisis-rcna45470
[10] BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62783900
[11] Mississippi Today: https://mississippitoday.org/2021/03/24/why-jacksons-water-system-is-broken/
[12] Vox: https://www.vox.com/2022/8/31/23329604/jackson-mississippi-water-crisis
[13] Mississippi Today: https://mississippitoday.org/2021/03/24/why-jacksons-water-system-is-broken/
[14] Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/03/26/in-jackson-miss-a-water-crisis-has-revealed-the-racial-costs-of-legacy-infrastructure/
[15] Mississippi Today: https://mississippitoday.org/2021/03/24/why-jacksons-water-system-is-broken/
[16] Vox: https://www.vox.com/2022/8/31/23329604/jackson-mississippi-water-crisis
[17] Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/03/biden-jackson-federal-cash-00054562
[18] Ibid.