|« Andrew Schepard Presents on Ethical Issues in Child Custody Disputes at AAML and AFCC Joint Conference||Upcoming Faculty Workshop (9/21/11): Eric Posner, University of Chicago Law School »|
Rose Cuison Villazor Contributes to New York Times “Room for Debate” Discussion on Cherokee Freedmen Controversy
By Rose Cuison Villazor
The New York Times
September 15, 2011
Although it seems contradictory, equal protection law allows the use of blood quantum to give preferential treatment to members of American Indian tribes. Specifically, in the 1974 case of Morton v. Mancari, the Supreme Court held that a federal agency’s hiring preferences of American Indians who met particular blood quantum requirements did not violate equal protection principles. According to the Court, the adoption of the blood quantum rule was not racially discriminatory. Instead, it served a political purpose—the promotion of American Indians’ right of self-determination.
Read the full piece at nytimes.com.