political status

What happened

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 gave qualified Indians a preference for jobs at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Non-Indian BIA employees sued, claiming the preference violated the 1972 federal anti-discrimination law. In Morton v. Mancari (1974), the Supreme Court held that Congress did not intend to repeal the Indian preference, and that it "does not constitute invidious racial discrimination in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

The Court explained that the preference applies to members of federally recognized tribes. A BIA policy it quoted said so: the preference "applies only to members of 'federally recognized' tribes. This operates to exclude many individuals who are racially to be classified as 'Indians.' In this sense, the preference is political rather than racial in nature." The Court wrote that the preference is "granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities."

The Court also warned about the stakes. If Indian preference laws, derived from historical relationships and explicitly designed to help only Indians, were deemed invidious racial discrimination, "25 U.S.C. in its entirety would be effectively erased and the Government's commitment to Indians would be jeopardized."

Mancari remains the main source for the idea that laws favoring tribal members are political classifications. A concurring opinion in Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) flagged that equal protection questions about the Indian Child Welfare Act remain undecided.

Good to know. The 'political rather than racial' wording comes from a BIA policy the Court quoted and adopted in its reasoning.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error