
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The Supreme Court upheld various provisions of the controversial Indian Child Welfare Act last week. The facts of Haaland v. Brackeen, and some provisions of the Act, raise dramatic questions about questions of best interests of children, of the nature of tribal entities, and of who speaks for whom. The opinion itself largely sidesteps many of these questions and instead dives into areas which Professor Amar has long offered his expertise - going back nearly 20 years or more. No wonder, then, that he is cited twice in this case, and now our listeners have the chance to learn from the acknowledged expert on these matters.
By Akhil Reed Amar4.5
375375 ratings
The Supreme Court upheld various provisions of the controversial Indian Child Welfare Act last week. The facts of Haaland v. Brackeen, and some provisions of the Act, raise dramatic questions about questions of best interests of children, of the nature of tribal entities, and of who speaks for whom. The opinion itself largely sidesteps many of these questions and instead dives into areas which Professor Amar has long offered his expertise - going back nearly 20 years or more. No wonder, then, that he is cited twice in this case, and now our listeners have the chance to learn from the acknowledged expert on these matters.

3,549 Listeners

669 Listeners

1,102 Listeners

2,010 Listeners

6,310 Listeners

32,338 Listeners

6,608 Listeners

7,216 Listeners

4,660 Listeners

5,819 Listeners

3,915 Listeners

3,344 Listeners

16,132 Listeners

744 Listeners

8,778 Listeners