the key word seems to be “disclosed.”
like it or not, they can own expensive property, take gifts, do really anything they want. there few boundaries for the supreme court… so long as they report what they have or were given
thomas knowingly broke the law by not disclosing the gifts he’s been receiving
( eta: and that article casually mentions thomas still hasn’t disclosed any gifts without pointing out - he’s continuing to break the law by not doing so. )
If anything it would be shocking if a home owned by a person who had a decades-long law career in a major American city was worth less than a million dollars these days. That’s a baseline middle-class residence in a lot of places.
This seems like a good ruling given the Federal Government’s centuries-long cultural genocide against Native Americans. Of course Thomas and Alito dissented.
This article in Slate, despite the gag-inducing headline, does a very nice job analyzing ACB’s opinion. And, naturally, Alito and Thomas’ dissents are ludicrous, at best, and disingenuously dangerous at worst.
Barrett’s majority opinion explained that Congress’ “muscular” constitutional power to regulate “commerce … with the Indian Tribes” extends well beyond mere trade, allowing regulation in areas of “criminal law, domestic violence, employment, property, tax,” and family relations. And these sweeping powers strictly limit states’ own authority to interfere with tribal affairs. From an originalist perspective, this analysis is clearly correct.
and
The plaintiffs’ claim that ICWA somehow “commandeers” the states in violation of the 10th Amendment, Barrett wrote, “runs headlong into the Constitution.” The Supremacy Clause ensures that “when Congress enacts a valid statute,” state law is “naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.”
The dissent:
The dissents from Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are disgraceful. Thomas holds the radical view that Congress has no general power to regulate Native affairs, a position rooted in a law review article that has been meticulously, comprehensively debunked.
and
Alito’s narrower dissent reads like an Ode to the White Savior, insisting that if Congress actually cared about Native children, it would let Texas remove them from their tribes and place them with a “loving” white families.
ETA: Fixed judge name
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, the court’s most consistent supporter of Indian rights, used a separate concurring opinion to emphasize the historical backdrop to the law, which was passed in response to the mass removal of Indian children from their families.
Well, color me surprised…
And of course this isn’t even really an accurate characterization of the law since it doesn’t forbid white families from adopting native children, it merely prioritizes adoptions within a tribe or family unit.
Well, Gorsuch came from the 10th Circuit, which hears a lot of cases related to Native Americans. He also grew up out west, as opposed to the other 8, who are all from east of the Appalachians. And, to be fair, his reading is very strictly originalist. I know that’s usually a cover story for ways to screw people over, but in this case, his originalism is perfectly correct.
Note that in the other case involving Native Americans this week, Justices rejected Tribal immunity from US bankruptcy laws. Gorsuch was the lone dissent, arguing that the US bankruptcy code doesn’t overrule tribal sovereignty. The point he made in his dissent was that the Founders intended that Tribes wouldn’t be subject to US law unless specifically stated, and because the Bankruptcy Code didn’t say that it applied to Native American tribes and nations, is does not. The Code refers to “other foreign or domestic governments,” and tribes are, according to his strict read, neither of those–Tribes “enjoy a unique status in our law.”
He is, inadvertently, the best friend on SCOTUS that Native Americans have probably ever had.
ETA: His SCOTUS candidacy was endorsed by the National Congress of American Indians:
George Will is a good example of the utter hypocrisy of so-called “originalists.”
The ICWA was enacted to stop the wicked practice of forcing assimilation by removing Indian children from non-Indian families. Now it functions to yank even thriving Indian children from nurturing non-Indian families, in barbaric homage to Indian “blood.”
Gotta work in the “barbaric” epithet there. The rest of the editorial is disgusting on multiple levels.
total asshole, and has been one for what, 60 years now? Damn dude, the pasture beckons!
Thanks for fixing that for me. 
I think this may be the report
“Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.“
With an ROI like that - it must be the best “investment” he ever made. Supreme Court Justices: Collect ‘em! Trade “em!
Now, Republicans, on the other hand…
IOKIYAR.
The one good takeaway that SCOTUS conservatives know of and work at sabotaging into the future:
In 2022, young people helped shatter expectations of a red wave in the midterms, influencing key races and favoring Democratic candidates by a 28-point margin with youth of color backing Democrats by even larger margins. A tidal wave generational shift is happening in US politics as young people solidify themselves as a decisive force in our elections and conservatives are highly motivated to stop it by restricting access to the ballot box, diluting voters’ power, and autonomously deciding whose votes actually count.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/supreme-court-navajo-nation-water/index.html
Gorsuch, dissenting and joined by Kagan and Jackson, argues that the case should have been simple:
Everyone agrees the Navajo received enforceable water rights by treaty. Everyone agrees the United States holds some of those water rights in trust on the Tribe’s behalf. And everyone agrees the extent of those rights has never been assessed. Adding those pieces together, the Navajo have a simple ask: They want the United States to identify the water rights it holds for them. And if the United States has misappropriated the Navajo’s water rights, the Tribe asks it to formulate a plan to stop doing so prospectively.
This is a nice bite:
Where do the Navajo go from here? To date, their efforts to find out what water rights the United States holds for them have produced an experience familiar to any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The Navajo have waited patiently for someone, anyone, to help them, only to be told (repeatedly) that they have been standing in the wrong line and must try another. To this day, the United States has never denied that the Navajo may have water rights in the mainstream of the Colorado River (and perhaps elsewhere) that it holds in trust for the Tribe. Instead, the government’s constant refrain is that the Navajo can have all they ask for; they just need to go somewhere else and do something else first. The Navajo have tried it all. They have written federal officials. They have moved this Court to clarify the United States’ responsibilities when representing them. They have sought to intervene directly in water-related litigation. And when all of those efforts were rebuffed, they brought a claim seeking to compel the United States to make good on its treaty obligations by providing an accounting of what water rights it holds on their behalf. At each turn, they have received the same answer: “Try again.” When this routine first began in earnest, Elvis was still making his rounds on The Ed Sullivan Show.
They go to the President & make it a campaign issue.
