here<\/a>\u00a0for a list of past winners of the Competition.<\/p>\nThe teams that competed in the 2019 Ames Final Round are below, as well as a summary of the case and the briefs submitted for the Final Round.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n
The Janet Wood Reno Memorial Team<\/u><\/p>\n
Kevin Chen
\nMikaela Gilbert-Lurie*
\nEliza Green
\nK.C. Jaski
\nAl Kelly*
\nCaroline Li<\/p>\n
The Patricia Roberts Harris Memorial Team<\/u><\/p>\n
Alicia Alvero Koski
\nCharlotte Butash
\nMelanie Fontes*
\nKelsey Fraser*
\nHilary Hurd
\nKate Peiffer<\/p>\n
*Oralist<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
United States Department of the Interior v. Caldwell<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nIn 2014, baby C.J., who was four months old, was placed in foster care with respondents Bryce and Candace Caldwell.\u00a0 Several years later, the Caldwells sought to adopt C.J.\u00a0 In conducting the adoption proceedings, the Ames state court followed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which establishes \u201cminimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes.\u201d\u00a0 25 U.S.C. \u00a7 1902.\u00a0 The statute defines an \u201cIndian child\u201d to include a minor who \u201cis eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.\u201d\u00a0 25 U.S.C. \u00a7 1903(4)(b).\u00a0 C.J.\u2019s biological father is an enrolled member of the Akava Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe in Ames.\u00a0 And C.J. is eligible for membership in the Akava Nation under the tribal constitution because he is \u201cof at least one-eighth degree Akava Nation Indian blood,\u201d defined to mean \u201cbiological lineal descent\u201d from Akava Nation members.\u00a0 C.J. thus qualifies as an \u201cIndian child\u201d under ICWA.<\/p>\n
ICWA imposes duties on state agencies and prescribes procedural and substantive rules that state courts must follow.\u00a0 Among other provisions, ICWA establishes placement preferences for adoptive proceedings involving Indian children, providing a preference, \u201cin the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with \u201c(1) a member of the child\u2019s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child\u2019s tribe; or (3) other Indian families.\u201d\u00a0 25 U.S.C. \u00a7 1915(a).<\/p>\n
After the Caldwells filed a petition to adopt C.J., the Akava Nation identified an alternative adoptive couple who were members of a different Indian tribe in Ames and so ranked above the Caldwells under ICWA\u2019s placement preferences.\u00a0 The family court denied the Caldwells\u2019 adoption petition, finding that good cause did not exist to depart from ICWA\u2019s placement preferences.\u00a0 But the other couple ultimately could not adopt C.J. due to health issues.<\/p>\n
The Caldwells and the State of Ames thereafter jointly filed this suit in federal court against petitioners, who are federal agencies and officials charged with administering ICWA.\u00a0 Respondents argued that ICWA violates equal protection because it impermissibly mandates racial and ethnic preferences in the placement of Indian children.\u00a0 Respondents further contended that ICWA violates the anti-commandeering component of the Tenth Amendment because it imposes duties on state officials to carry out a federal program and displaces state substantive standards governing domestic relations.\u00a0 Petitioners responded that no equal protection problem exists because the statute permissibly differentiates children based on a political classification. \u00a0And petitioners further asserted that the statute comports with the Tenth Amendment because it simply preempts state family law in certain respects and does not commandeer state officers.\u00a0 The district court granted summary judgment to respondents, but the Ames Circuit reversed and held that ICWA was unconstitutional on both grounds.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider:<\/p>\n
\n- Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. \u00a7 1901\u00a0et seq.<\/em>, and the final rule implementing the statute violate equal protection.<\/li>\n
- Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. \u00a7 1901\u00a0et seq.<\/em>, and the final rule implementing the statute violate the anti-commandeering component of the Tenth Amendment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Welcome to the 2019 Ames Final, live from Austin Hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts! Live coverage begins at 7:30pm. The following […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10173,"featured_media":11991,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1371,3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[1384,1618],"class_list":["post-11986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ames-live-blog","category-amicus"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/80\/2019\/11\/2016_11_01_Ames2016-Final-Round-Competition_MStewart013-1.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-37k","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11986","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10173"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11986\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11991"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11986"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}