Marsha/Marcia (law professor lines) / legal commentator (ambiguous) — Marcia Zug / legal voice

Okay.

All right.

You're listening to Radiolab.

Matt and Melody Capobianco clutch to two-year-old Veronica.

This could possibly be the last time they hold their baby as her mom and dad.

We need to give her a chance again.

Have you ever seen the child before?

They declined any further comment on camera.

So the first preference would be with the immediate family.

So you're removed from mom, you're placed with dad, or maybe with grandmother.

Our daughter is what's motivating us.

I believe it was absolutely intentional.

Unconstitutional because it's a race-based preference.

It calls into question every single federal Indian law.

There goes Indian law.

Well, in terms of Veronica's placement,

Had it come out the other way, then it would be over.

So now she's up for adoption, right?

My understanding of the case, they're not saying that ICWA doesn't apply with the placement preferences.

That's insane.

Yes.

It clearly sat wrong with at least some members of the court.

I mean, when listening to the oral arguments, you could tell that.

Roberts harped on it as well.

It might have been that that was too big an issue to address in this case, that they weren't ready to.

But I think it's an indication that at least some members of the court have serious reservations about Indian law.

because they just don't see Veronica as an Indian child.

To them, Indian is a race, and she doesn't have enough blood to be of that race.