Project Milk Carton — Investigation | July 23, 2026
Some of the hearings lasted no more than sixty seconds.
That is not a figure of speech. It is the ACLU's description, in the court record, of Pennington County, South Dakota's 48-hour emergency-removal hearings — the proceedings in which the state decided whether a Native child taken from home would stay taken. Parents got no lawyer before the hearing. No notice of the claims against them or the burden of proof. No right to cross-examine anyone. No right to present evidence. In 2015, a federal judge went through it all on summary judgment and found the county's practices violated both the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. In December 2016 he entered a permanent injunction.
In 2018, the Eighth Circuit vacated everything — not because the findings were wrong, but because under Younger abstention, the federal courthouse was the wrong building. The Supreme Court declined to hear it. Judgment was entered for the defendants in January 2020. There was no settlement. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse's file records no documented change in Pennington County's practice.
A federal judge found systemic violations of a federal law, and the net legal consequence, six years later, is nothing. That is not an aberration in how the Indian Child Welfare Act is enforced. It is how the Indian Child Welfare Act is enforced.
ICWA turns 48 this year. Congress wrote hard mandates into it in 1978 — notify the child's Tribe by certified mail (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)), prove "active efforts" to keep the family together, a higher bar than the "reasonable efforts" standard governing every other child-welfare case (§ 1912(d)), and follow a ranked placement-preference order (§ 1915). Then Congress stopped. It attached no agency to monitor the mandates, no audit to measure them, and no penalty for violating them. This investigation pulled the Federal Register preambles, the appellate opinions, the state statutes and legislative records, the state compliance-review documents, and — for the first time anywhere, from Project Milk Carton's own 630,263-grant IRS Schedule I database — the private philanthropy record. Here is what the record shows:
No agency. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' own 2016 final rule, at 81 FR 38778, answered commenters who asked for enforcement mechanisms and funding conditions by declining to create any: "The final rule does not expressly address other enforcement mechanisms." HHS's 2016 AFCARS rule states that the Department of the Interior is "the lead agency for ICWA" and that HHS "is not authorized to determine compliance with ICWA and/or penalize states." The Native American Rights Fund's practice guide says oversight "has been left to the judicial system." Each federal door points at another door.
No audit. Of the 17 states that have passed their own ICWA statutes, exactly one — Minnesota — attaches a financial penalty to non-compliance, and it does not publish the scores. Three more run partial reviews. The other 13 state-ICWA states, and all 33 states with no state ICWA at all, have no published self-audit we could find.
No penalty. In the entire post-Brackeen era, we found zero federal-appellate or state-supreme-court decisions invalidating a state action under ICWA's § 1914 remedy, and zero structural civil-rights suits — the Van Hunnik abstention holding forecloses the route. The whole enforcement architecture is case-by-case appeals, and the caseload tells you how that is going: roughly 200 ICWA appellate cases a year.
No money on the watchdog's side of the table, either. In PMC's $89.12 billion philanthropy corpus, exactly 2 grants — $226,786 — name ICWA or Native child welfare as their purpose. Every grant ever recorded to NICWA, the national ICWA compliance watchdog, totals $354,604. The system it watches draws roughly $9.7 billion a year in federal money.
And no scoreboard until 2029. The first federal rule ever to require ICWA compliance data — published December 5, 2024 — does not require states to begin collecting until October 1, 2028, with the first files due May 15, 2029: fifty-one years after the statute passed. In March 2026, the federal government reopened public comment on those very data elements before a single one has been collected.
Three things happened in the last ten weeks that make this the moment to print it. On July 10–16, 2026 — one week ago — the Uniform Law Commission gave final approval to a Uniform State Indian Child Welfare Act at its 135th Annual Meeting in Chicago, sending a model statute to the 2027 legislative sessions. In May 2026, a cert petition, Reyelts v. Flanery, No. 25-1287, asked the Supreme Court to take a second run at ICWA's constitutionality. And on March 30, 2026, the Administration for Children and Families issued a Request for Public Comment on the AFCARS ICWA data elements — the only future compliance instrument the law has ever had, now under review before it starts.
This is the record.
I. A statute with teeth and no jaw
ICWA is procedurally demanding by design, and its three working mandates are concrete: the Tribe must get notice, the agency must prove active efforts — affirmative help actually delivered to the family, not the paper "reasonable efforts" finding that suffices in every other case — and placement must follow a ranked preference order that starts with extended family. What Congress never built is anyone whose job it is to check.
The paper trail on that absence is short and unambiguous, and we read it at the primary source. When the BIA finalized its ICWA regulations in 2016, commenters asked the agency to create enforcement mechanisms and to condition funding on compliance. The preamble's answer, at 81 FR 38852–53, is a single declining sentence: "The final rule does not expressly address other enforcement mechanisms." The rule points instead to § 1914 — the provision letting a parent, Indian custodian, child, or Tribe petition a court to invalidate an action that violated the statute — and its regulatory echo at § 23.137. One precision note: the BIA did not announce that it lacks oversight of state compliance; it was asked to build enforcement and declined. The distinction matters and the result does not — either way, no one at Interior audits a state.
HHS, the agency that actually funds foster care, put its half of the vacuum in writing the same year: Interior is "the lead agency for ICWA," and HHS "is not authorized to determine compliance with ICWA and/or penalize states." The Native American Rights Fund's Practical Guide to ICWA completes the circuit at FAQ 20: oversight "has been left to the judicial system."
So the judicial system is the enforcement mechanism. Kathryn Fort — who runs the ICWA Appellate Project, the closest thing the field has to a national scorekeeper — describes in a 2026 Yale Law Journal Forum essay what that looks like: ICWA "is regularly disregarded and misunderstood by practitioners and judicial officers." Her project counts roughly 200 ICWA appellate cases per year; in 2021 the count was 226 nationally, about 150 of them in California alone. By 2022, cases about the initial inquiry — whether anyone even asked if the child was Native — made up 53% of all reported ICWA cases. The California Supreme Court finally intervened in In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, ordering conditional reversal where the inquiry was inadequate, and describing a problem that "keeps surfacing in appeals with alarming frequency." The most litigated ICWA question in America is not whether states honor the placement preferences or prove active efforts. It is whether they perform step zero.
And appeals are the ceiling of what enforcement can reach — someone with standing must notice the violation and litigate it, usually an under-resourced tribal ICWA office or an appointed appellate lawyer, after the child is already placed. We searched for anything stronger. Post-Brackeen § 1914 invalidation cases at the federal-appellate or state-supreme level: none found. Post-Brackeen structural civil-rights suits: none found — Section III explains why no lawyer will file one.
The verified sentence at the bottom of the pile: no agency, no audit, no penalty — only appeals.
II. What no scorekeeper produces: the ladder
If nobody checks, what happens? The disparity numbers are the answer, and in 2025–26 they are not old numbers — they are this year's.
South Dakota's own child-protection annual report, surfaced by South Dakota Searchlight in December 2025, says that in FY2025, 1,201 of the state's 1,709 foster children — 70% — were Native American, the fourth consecutive year above 70%, in a state whose child population is 13% Native. The same report shows the placement machinery beneath it: of 793 licensed foster homes, 93 — about 12% — are Native. The preference order in § 1915 cannot function inside that arithmetic. ProPublica's 2023 investigation supplies the terminal statistics: more than 700 Native terminations of parental rights from 2017 to 2021, at roughly 13 times the white rate.
Alaska, October 2025, from the state's own Office of Children's Services data as reported by KTOO/Alaska Public Media: Alaska Native and American Indian children are 23.8% of the under-18 population and up to 69% of out-of-home care; trial coverage in July 2025 put it at 68%, or 1,712 children. On the other side of the caseworker's desk: 8.7% of OCS caseworkers are Alaska Native or American Indian in a workforce more than 71.9% white, with 11 of 13 supervisors white. The state's answer, on the record: it does "not view this as a 'concern.'"
Minnesota — which has had its own state ICWA since 1985 — posts the worst relative rate in the country: Native children enter out-of-home care at roughly 16 times the non-Native rate on 2023 state data (16.4x in 2020; the University of Minnesota's child-welfare research center says 17x). In Ramsey County — St. Paul — the 2021 figure was nearly 32 times. Montana: 41% of the foster caseload, 8.7% of the child population — about 44 of every 1,000 Native children in foster care versus about 9 of every 1,000 white children over the last decade, a sustained ~5x.
Two honesty notes on that table. The national ~2x is approximate — we could not re-pull the current in-care race breakdown from the federal dashboard, and we flag it below — and it conceals more than it reveals: NICWA's compliance literature puts individual state rates "as high as 12 times," and the national numbers are structural undercounts, because AFCARS excludes tribal-agency placements — somewhere between a third and 40% of Native foster placements. NICWA's most recent disparity fact sheet (November 2021 edition) puts the national picture at 2.7x for placement and 4x for likelihood of removal.
One more number, with its limits stated: PMC's live NCMEC-fed case data carries no race or tribal-citizenship field, so it can say nothing about Native missing children, and we will not pretend otherwise. What we can say neutrally is scale: as of this week, PMC tracks 134 active missing-child cases in Arizona, 42 in Oklahoma, 30 in Minnesota, 29 in New Mexico, 13 in Montana, 10 in Alaska, 8 in South Dakota, and 3 in North Dakota — the states this article walks through. The children in the foster-care numbers and the children on our missing pages live in the same systems.
III. Van Hunnik: what enforcement looks like when someone finally tries
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik is the only full-scale attempt in ICWA's modern history to enforce the statute against a state system rather than one case at a time, and its arc is the whole story in miniature. We read the opinions.
The Oglala and Rosebud Sioux Tribes and three Native parents sued over Pennington County's 48-hour hearings. A federal district court certified the class in 2014 (993 F. Supp. 2d 1017). On March 30, 2015, the court granted partial summary judgment: the county's practices violated ICWA and due process — no counsel appointed before the hearing, no notice of the claims or the burden of proof, no cross-examination, no right to present evidence. Some hearings, per the ACLU, "lasted no more than 60 seconds." On December 15, 2016, the court entered a permanent injunction.
Then the Eighth Circuit, in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Fleming, 904 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2018), vacated it all on Younger abstention and ordered the complaint dismissed — the federal courts had to stay out of South Dakota's ongoing temporary-custody proceedings. Certiorari denied, October 8, 2019. Judgment for the defendants, January 16, 2020. No settlement. Per the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, no documented change in Pennington County practice.
Whether sixty-second hearings still happen in Pennington County is a question the public record cannot answer — there is no post-2020 documentation either way, and we will not claim continuation without it. But notice what that gap is: six years after a vacated injunction, nobody has checked. That is the finding.
What South Dakota did instead of checking is its own exhibit. In November 2023, Jessica Morson, director of the South Dakota ICWA Coalition, publicly asked the state to audit its own recent ICWA cases. The state never has. Instead, in March 2024, Governor Noem signed HB 1232, creating an Indian Child Welfare Advisory Council — housed inside the Department of Social Services, the agency whose compliance is the question, after DSS had opposed a stronger task-force bill. At the council's first meeting, in July 2024, two of South Dakota's nine tribal nations attended.
And Van Hunnik's legal legacy runs the other direction from its findings: its Younger holding is why the structural-suit route is dead. A civil-rights lawyer contemplating a systemic ICWA case today reads 904 F.3d 603 and closes the file. The one enforcement mechanism Congress wrote — appeals — is the one that survived.
IV. The standing dodge: ICWA's second trip to the Supreme Court steps
Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) is remembered as the case that saved ICWA. It is less often said that the Court never reached the equal-protection merits — the individual challengers were held to lack standing — and that Brackeen added not one unit of enforcement to the statute it preserved. A law can be simultaneously constitutional and unenforced. ICWA is the proof.
The second run is already over, or nearly. In Minnesota, foster parents seeking to adopt Red Lake Nation twins challenged the placement preferences of ICWA and the state's MIFPA on equal-protection grounds. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, on June 3, 2024, did something rare: it reached the merits and held the preferences do not violate equal protection. In March 2026, the Minnesota Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Hudson, resolved the case on different grounds — the foster parents lacked standing. In May 2026 the Goldwater Institute's Sandefur, with attorney Fiddler, filed a cert petition, Reyelts v. Flanery, No. 25-1287, presenting equal-protection and First Amendment questions; the American Enterprise Institute campaigned publicly for a grant. The apparent outcome is a cert denial — ICWA preserved — reported by NCRP on July 14, 2026, though we could not read the Supreme Court's docket directly from this box; final docket status is pending confirmation, and it is first on our watch list below.
Step back and we will name it plainly: the standing dodge is now a pattern. Brackeen (2023) and the Minnesota case (2026) both ended with courts declining to answer the equal-protection question on standing grounds, and Goldwater is funding serial vehicles to keep asking it. The constitutional cloud over ICWA has not been dispelled on the merits by the Supreme Court — it has been postponed, twice — while the statute underneath it operates with no agency, no audit, and no penalty. The litigation war over whether ICWA is constitutional has consumed a decade. The question of whether anyone follows it has never had a docket number.
The ordinary state-court machinery, meanwhile, keeps producing exactly the case-by-case corrections § 1914 contemplates — and no more. In the last eighteen months: Oklahoma's Supreme Court held 8–0 (In re Guardianship of K.D.B., Feb. 11, 2025) that Cherokee children in Claremore were domiciled in Indian country, affirming transfer to Cherokee Nation court; Iowa ordered a transfer to the Rosebud Sioux tribal court and North Dakota remanded an ICWA case (both Feb. 2026); New York gave full faith and credit to a Navajo Nation order (Feb. 2026); and Michigan opened a new fault line (In re Ledee, May 29, 2026), holding the state's ICWA inapplicable to Lumbee citizens as Lumbee federal recognition advances. Individual cases, individually corrected — the enforcement architecture working precisely as designed, which is to say: after the fact, for the families who got a lawyer.
V. The audit map: who checks, and what checking looks like
The July 2026 Uniform Law Commission approval puts a well-drafted model ICWA in front of the 2027 legislatures, and the drafting is not the problem. Seventeen states already have their own ICWA statutes — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, per the Connecticut legislature's 2024 research count, which we read in full. (Reports of "14 states," including an earlier PMC report, undercount it.) The question that decides whether a state ICWA is a law or a description of good practice is the one almost nobody asks: who audits it?
We built the map. Here it is.
Sit with the Minnesota row, because it is simultaneously the best system in the country and a demonstration of the problem. Minnesota reviews every county, every year, and — uniquely in America — withholds money for repeat failure. And even there, the scores are secret. When the Star Tribune's Sofia Barnett went county by county in July 2025 — "When it comes to laws to keep Minnesota Native families intact, effectiveness depends on geography" — the paper had to obtain the state's compliance records itself. Those records showed more than twenty counties out of compliance in 2021, failures as elementary as not asking whether a child was Native, not sending the certified-mail notice, and — in Cass County — failing on lineage documentation and notification. Hennepin County, the state's largest, measured at roughly 64% compliance in the records the Star Tribune obtained — a number that appears in no public state document, because Minnesota does not publish county scores. The one state that grades itself keeps the report card in a drawer. That is itself a transparency finding, and it is ours: we searched for the public version of those scores and it does not exist.
Minnesota also shows what a real watchdog looks like when one is allowed to exist. The state's Ombudsperson for American Indian Families — a standing office with quarterly public reports at mn.gov/oaif — observes court hearings, has documented counties failing the certified-mail notice requirement, reports finding "a number of ICWA/MIFPA violations," and had monitored or investigated 179 cases as of its August 2025 report. And in June 2026, Dakota County — one of the counties flagged in the 2021 records — opened a dedicated ICWA Court under Judge Jamie L. Cork. A flagged county building a specialized court is the before-and-after this field almost never produces, and it is on our watch list.
Oregon's row carries the map's sharpest number: the state passed its ICWA because a 2019 review found less than 25% compliance. Every state that has never run the review gets to assume it would score better. Nothing in this record supports the assumption.
Could the other 46 audit themselves if they wanted to? Yes — the instrument has existed for over a decade. The NCJFCJ published Measuring Compliance with the ICWA: An Assessment Toolkit in 2014, with a Casey Family Programs research brief in 2015; its court-observation instrument was validated in four jurisdictions with 94% interrater agreement, and one de-identified statewide case-file review was actually delivered to a state court-improvement program. The QUICWA checklist, developed by the Minneapolis American Indian Center, is in live operational use as an official Michigan child-welfare form. Yet the toolkit's whole history is pilots — an Oklahoma regional pilot in 2015 that the write-up itself labels "not representative," a North Dakota effort in 2000, two de-identified sites. It has never once become a standing state program.
Buried in the compliance literature is the single scoring rule that explains why states might prefer not to look. NICWA's compliance summary, at its Table 3 — adapted from Sage & Barkdull's 2022 peer-reviewed statewide audit in one midwestern state, funded through a federal Court Improvement Program grant — states it verbatim: "In cases where some evidence of active efforts is apparent, but there are only findings of reasonable efforts, the case is not counted as compliant." That is the mechanism hiding in plain sight: judges entering reasonable-efforts findings — the ordinary standard, the one the federal match runs on — in cases where the law demands active efforts. The higher standard doesn't get violated dramatically; it gets rounded down to the lower one, one boilerplate finding at a time, and under the field's own scoring rule, every such case is non-compliant. (An earlier PMC report attributed this rule to the Casey/NCJFCJ toolkit itself, and repeated a claim that Montana caseworkers listed foster placement itself as an "active effort" — the attribution was wrong and the claim does not appear in the underlying articles. We struck both; the verified mechanism is the reasonable-for-active substitution, which is worse, because it is systemic and judicial rather than anecdotal.) One more honesty layer from the Casey brief: Utah and Oklahoma treat active efforts as more than reasonable efforts, while California and Maryland equate the two standards — some states have defined the higher bar out of existence, and any national measure has to account for it.
What does a state-ICWA statute mean without the audit? Montana answers. Its MICWA — and an earlier PMC report erred here too, saying the law was "extended indefinitely" — was extended only to June 2029 by SB 147, signed May 12, 2025, and before passage the House committee gutted the bill from 27 pages to 2, stripping the cultural-compact provisions and most of the rest. Its sponsor, Windy Boy, said it was "probably the best we could do this session." On placement preferences, Montana's 2021 numbers show the decay within the system: 43% of Native youth were placed with a Native family at their first placement — and among children moved to a second home that same year, only 28% were. (That is a first-versus-second-placement gap within 2021, not a multi-year trend, and we print it as such.) Wyoming's WICWA, meanwhile, carries a sunset: it dies in 2027 unless SF0058 removes the clause — the bill passed the Senate 29–1 on February 24, 2026, and its House outcome is unconfirmed as we go to press. New Mexico wrote what practitioners called a platinum-standard state ICWA on paper, while its child-welfare agency was failing all 42 of its Kevin S. settlement targets by 2024, with a 2026 state DOJ report titled, in part, "Systemic Failures."
Paper is not the constraint. The ULC's new uniform act will be the eighteenth well-drafted instrument pointed at this problem. Unless a legislature bolts an audit and a consequence to it — Minnesota's § 477A.0126 with the scores published, Oregon's biennial report with teeth — it will be an eighteenth description of good practice.
VI. The money: $9.7 billion a year on one side, five figures on the other
Follow the money and the enforcement vacuum stops looking like an oversight.
The federal foster-care funding stream that pays for the system — roughly $9.7 billion a year — flows to states with no ICWA condition attached anywhere in it. No notice requirement audited, no active-efforts finding checked, no placement-preference analysis required before reimbursement. A state that never asks whether a child is Native draws the same federal match as a state that does everything the statute demands. Compliance is a pure cost center; non-compliance is free. (An earlier PMC report carried a breakdown of that stream's administrative composition sourced from search summaries of a federal brief we were never able to read directly; we do not reprint those figures here, and we say so rather than launder them through repetition.)
That is the public side. Until now, nobody has quantified the private side — what American philanthropy spends watching this system. Project Milk Carton can, because we hold a research corpus built from IRS Form 990 Schedule I e-filings: 630,263 grants totaling $89.12 billion. We ran the trace on July 23, 2026, against our own database. This table is a PMC exclusive.
In a $89 billion, 630,000-grant philanthropy corpus, exactly two grants — $226,786 — name ICWA or Native child welfare as their purpose. That is roughly 0.1% of child-welfare grantmaking by count and about 0.17% by dollars. Every grant our corpus has ever recorded to NICWA — the national ICWA compliance watchdog, the organization behind the literature review and the scoring rule in Section V — totals $354,604, most of it donor-advised-fund pass-throughs (Fidelity Charitable, Schwab, American Endowment Foundation, American Online Giving) plus a single $232,616 Generations United subgrant in 2023 for a national technical-assistance center. The other verified rows at the top: Maniilaq Association to the Native Village of Selawik, 2022, $188,978, including BIA ICWA support; NCJFCJ to the National American Indian Court Judges Association, 2022, $37,808, for child-abuse training of judicial personnel; Fidelity Charitable to NICWA, 2021, $37,050.
Three fences on our own finding, because honesty is the brand. First, this is a purpose-text search: a grant to a tribal organization whose purpose line reads "general support" will not match, so the 2-grant figure is a floor for explicitly ICWA-purposed grants, not a census of all money reaching Native child welfare. Second, Casey Family Programs — the field's major operating foundation — does not file Schedule I grants in the shape our corpus captures, so its giving is invisible here and we make no claim about it. Third, this is private philanthropy; federal grants flow through different systems.
But the shape of the finding survives every caveat: the private-money picture mirrors the federal one. The system draws about $9.7 billion a year. The national watchdog watching it is funded, across our entire multi-year corpus, in five figures at a time. Fort's appellate project counts 200 cases a year; NICWA writes the compliance literature; a Minnesota ombudsperson's office monitors 179 cases; a coalition director in South Dakota asks for an audit and gets an advisory council two of nine tribal nations bothered to attend. That is the entire scorekeeping capacity of a continent, and this table is its budget.
VII. The counterweight: what the federal government has actually done lately
Fairness requires the other column, because the last twenty months have produced more genuine federal movement than the previous twenty years.
On December 23, 2024, the Native American Child Protection Act, P.L. 118-160, was signed. Twelve days later, on January 4, 2025, came the bigger one: the Supporting America's Children and Families Act, P.L. 118-258, reauthorizing Title IV-B with a 3% tribal set-aside, explicit ICWA-compliance implementation support, an expanded Tribal Court Improvement Program, and an additional $75 million a year beginning in 2026 — $420 million a year through 2029. The December 2024 AFCARS rule is itself the first compliance instrument ever created, and it is beginning to work at the margins: per The Imprint in October 2025, the first eight tribes' data now appear in the federal AFCARS dashboard. In April 2026, Arizona enacted a law requiring its child-welfare agency to attempt cooperative agreements with tribes. And one county deserves to be named for succeeding: Grand Forks County, North Dakota, cut its Native foster-care population by roughly 70%, per June 2026 reporting — proof that the numbers in Section II are policy outcomes, not weather.
Now the debit side. The FY2027 President's budget proposes eliminating Tribal Behavioral Health Grants (~$51 million) and Circles of Care ($7.7 million) — among the only grant programs tribes do not have to compete against states for, and the front-end family-support money whose absence becomes an "active efforts" failure in a courtroom two years later. And the March 30, 2026 ACF Request for Public Comment reopened the AFCARS ICWA data elements — the move NICWA had publicly warned would come before the 2028 collection date arrived. The comment window closed in May 2026; NICWA filed in defense of the elements; the outcome is pending. The federal government giveth a scoreboard with one hand and puts it under review with the other, three years before the first game.
VIII. Forty-eight years, no scorekeeper: the timeline
Assemble the whole record on one axis and the finding states itself.
Between 1978 and 2029 sit two generations of Native children whose cases are, in the federal record, unexaminable — not disputed: unexaminable, because the data that would examine them was never required to exist. This investigation set out to answer whether any state complies with ICWA. The verified answer is stranger than a scandal: after forty-eight years, the machinery that could answer the question has not been built yet, and its scheduled 2029 delivery is already under review.
IX. What we could not verify
The record above is what we could nail down. Here is what we could not, stated plainly, in the house tradition:
Whether sixty-second hearings continue in Pennington County. No post-2020 documentation exists either way. We claim only what the record holds: findings, vacatur, and no documented change since.
*The final Supreme Court docket status of Reyelts v. Flanery, No. 25-1287.* The apparent outcome is a cert denial (NCRP, July 14, 2026); we could not read the docket directly and will confirm before we treat it as settled.
Minnesota's county compliance scores. Not published; the Hennepin ~64% figure exists only in records the Star Tribune obtained, and we attribute it solely to that reporting.
The current national in-care race breakdown behind the ~2x figure — the federal dashboard was inaccessible at press time; the FY2024 total (328,947) is solid, the AI/AN share is approximate.
The administrative-cost composition of the federal foster-care stream. The underlying federal brief was never readable at the source; we dropped the figures rather than repeat summaries of them.
The full text of Fort's Yale essay (we quote only verified abstract language) and the 2023–25 ICWA Appellate Project counts. Several 2025–26 state appellate outcomes (Alaska, Washington, Arizona) reached us with unverified holdings and are omitted. Wyoming SF0058's House outcome is unconfirmed. And an "Alaska Native Justice Center ICWA assessment" cited in earlier drafts and elsewhere does not correspond to any published document we could locate; it appears nowhere in this article.
X. What PMC will watch
Four dockets, one deadline, and a courtroom:
Supreme Court docket No. 25-1287 — final disposition of Reyelts v. Flanery, and whatever vehicle Goldwater files next. The standing dodge has a pattern; patterns have next installments.
The AFCARS RFC outcome. Whether ACF holds, weakens, or delays the ICWA data elements after the March–May 2026 comment round decides whether May 15, 2029 stays real. Every year of slippage is another cohort of unexaminable cases.
Wyoming SF0058. If it failed the House, WICWA sunsets in 2027 and the 17-state map loses a state the same year the ULC's uniform act asks legislatures to grow it.
Dakota County's ICWA Court. A county flagged in the 2021 compliance records built a dedicated court in June 2026. If its numbers move, it becomes the replicable exhibit; we will ask for them.
And one standing question we can pursue with our own tools: Minnesota's county ICWA compliance scores exist, are generated annually under a funding-penalty statute, and are not published. There is no visible reason a score used to withhold public money should be a secret. We intend to ask for them, in writing, and to print what comes back.
Forty-eight years is long enough to know that a law with no agency, no audit, and no penalty is enforced exactly as much as its violators volunteer to enforce it. The first scoreboard in the statute's history is due in 2029 — if it survives its own review. Until then, the only scorekeepers are a professor counting appeals, a watchdog funded in five figures, an ombudsperson's office in one state, and whoever else decides the counting is worth doing without being paid for it.
We just counted the money. Someone has to.
Project Milk Carton is a 501(c)(3) child welfare transparency organization. Every figure in this investigation traces to a verified source: Federal Register preambles, published appellate opinions, state statutes and legislative records, state agency reports, documented investigative reporting, and PMC's own IRS Form 990 Schedule I research corpus, queried July 23, 2026. Where the record is incomplete, we said so in the text. This article corrects seven errors in our July 19 daily report, each noted where it appears.
If you enjoyed this work and feel encouraged by independent investigations like this, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to The Constitutional Republic on Substack or donate at
Project Milk Carton Inc. Your gift keeps our site alive, spotlighting high-risk children!
Your support helps us continue:
investigative reporting
public records research
educational transparency projects
community outreach
and future investigations like this series
Most importantly, please share this article.
Independent journalism survives when ordinary people help spread information powerful institutions would prefer remain ignored, misunderstood, or buried beneath complexity.
Because silence protects systems.
Informed communities protect children.
ALL paid subscriptions are tax deductible Project Milk Carton | 501(c)(3) | EIN: 33-1323547
Sources
The enforcement vacuum — primary documents
Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1912(a), 1912(d), 1914, 1915; 25 C.F.R. § 23.137
BIA final ICWA rule (2016), 81 FR 38778, preamble at 38852–53 (text pulled from govinfo)
HHS 2016 AFCARS rule preamble (DOI "the lead agency for ICWA"; HHS "not authorized to determine compliance with ICWA and/or penalize states")
NARF, A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act, FAQ 20
FR Doc. 2026-10420 (May 26, 2026) — ICWA Designated Tribal Agents for Service of Notice
Litigation
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D.S.D. 2014); partial summary judgment, Mar. 30, 2015; permanent injunction, Dec. 15, 2016; vacated, Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Fleming, 904 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2018); cert. denied Oct. 8, 2019; judgment Jan. 16, 2020. ACLU case materials ("some hearings lasted no more than 60 seconds"); Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, No. 5:13-cv-05020
Haaland v. Brackeen (U.S. 2023)
In re L.K. (Minn. Ct. App. June 3, 2024); Minnesota Supreme Court, March 2026 (Hudson, C.J.); Reyelts v. Flanery, No. 25-1287 (U.S., cert. petition, May 2026; Goldwater Institute/Sandefur and Fiddler); apparent cert denial per NCRP, July 14, 2026 — final docket status pending confirmation
In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112 (Aug. 19, 2024; Evans, J.); companion In re Kenneth D., 16 Cal.5th 1087
In re Guardianship of K.D.B. (Okla. Feb. 11, 2025, 8–0); In re Ledee (Mich. Ct. App. May 29, 2026); In re M.W.-T. (Iowa, Feb. 2026); In re D.G. (N.D. Feb. 2026); K.J. v. S.A. (N.Y. Feb. 2026)
A Better Childhood v. OCS (D. Alaska, dismissed Apr. 1, 2026, Gleason, J.; Ninth Circuit appeal announced May 1, 2026, with Alaska Native/ICWA subclass)
The scholarship and the compliance literature
Kathryn E. Fort, The Challenge of Indian Child Welfare Act Enforcement in the Modern Age of Child Dependency, Yale Law Journal Forum (2026) (quoted from verified abstract); ICWA Appellate Project counts via Fort, Juvenile & Family Court Journal 74:9–36 (2023)
NICWA, ICWA Compliance Summary and Review of Existing Literature, Table 3, adapted from Sage & Barkdull (2022); NICWA disparity fact sheet (Nov. 2021 edition — most recent located)
NCJFCJ, Measuring Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act: An Assessment Toolkit (2014); Casey Family Programs companion research brief (Mar. 2015)
QUICWA Performance Checklist (Minneapolis American Indian Center; hosted as a Michigan MDHHS form)
The states
CT Office of Legislative Research, Report 2024-R-0060 (17 state ICWA statutes)
Minn. Stat. § 477A.0126 (2017); Sofia Barnett, Minnesota Star Tribune, July 26, 2025 (compliance records obtained by the paper); MN Ombudsperson for American Indian Families quarterly reports: https://mn.gov/oaif; Dakota County ICWA Court (June 2026, Judge Jamie L. Cork); 2023 DCYF data (~16x); Ramsey County ~32x (2021)
SD Searchlight, Dec. 16, 2025 (state CPS annual report); ProPublica (2023); Jessica Morson audit call, Nov. 2023 (SD Searchlight); SD HB 1232 (Mar. 2024; first council meeting July 2024)
Jamie Diep, KTOO/Alaska Public Media, Oct. 23, 2025; Alaska Beacon trial coverage (July 2025); Anchorage Daily News, June 4, 2026
Mara Silvers, Montana Free Press, Feb. 12, 2024; MTFP "Keeping the Kids" series; MTFP, May 27, 2025 (SB 147)
Wyoming SF0058 (passed Senate 29–1, Feb. 24, 2026); Oregon biennial ODHS/OJD report and 2019 <25% compliance review; Washington ICW case reviews (2007–2019, updated July 2024); Wisconsin DCF CQI summary (pub. 2018)
New Mexico: Kevin S. settlement (The Imprint, Apr. 13, 2026); 2026 NM DOJ systemic-failures report; Arizona tribal cooperative-agreement law (Apr. 2026); Grand Forks Herald, June 13, 2026
The federal data rule and the money
AFCARS ICWA final rule (published Dec. 5, 2024; effective Feb. 5, 2025; first collection Oct. 1, 2028; first data due May 15, 2029); ACF Request for Public Comment (Mar. 30, 2026; closed May 2026); The Imprint, Oct. 10, 2025 (first eight tribes in the AFCARS dashboard); FY2024 AFCARS (328,947 children)
P.L. 118-258, Supporting America's Children and Families Act (Jan. 4, 2025); P.L. 118-160, Native American Child Protection Act (Dec. 23, 2024); FY2027 President's budget (proposed eliminations: Tribal Behavioral Health Grants ~$51M; Circles of Care $7.7M)
Uniform Law Commission, 135th Annual Meeting, Chicago, July 10–16, 2026 (verified via North Dakota Court System news release, July 16, 2026, and the ULC agenda); NICWA tribal-consultation concerns (Nov. 2023)
The philanthropy trace (PMC exclusive)
Project Milk Carton research database, IRS Form 990 Schedule I e-file corpus: 630,263 grants, $89,121,222,245 tracked; purpose-text query run July 23, 2026. Verified largest rows: Generations United → NICWA, 2023, $232,616; Maniilaq Association → Native Village of Selawik, 2022, $188,978; NCJFCJ → National American Indian Court Judges Association, 2022, $37,808; Fidelity Charitable → NICWA, 2021, $37,050. Methodology limits stated in Section VI.