Cherokee Nation v. Nomura

160 P.3d 967 (2013)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cherokee Nation v. Nomura

Oklahoma Supreme Court
160 P.3d 967 (2013)


An Indian woman (the birth mother) gave birth in Oklahoma to a child who was entitled to the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) because of his connection to the Cherokee Nation (the nation) (plaintiff). The birth mother chose to place the child for adoption with non-Indian adoptive parents who resided in Florida, using the services of American Adoptions of Florida, Inc. (the agency) (defendant). After the child’s birth, the adoptive parents filed a motion in Oklahoma court, asking the state to pay for the child’s adoption expenses, and then filed an adoption petition in Florida. The birth mother and child traveled to Florida to complete the adoption. The agency filed and was granted a petition in Florida court to terminate the birth mother’s parental rights. The birth mother requested that the court waive ICWA requirements, which the court did, finding that notice to the nation was unnecessary because the adoption proceeding was voluntary and that there was good cause to waive the ICWA preferred-placement hierarchy. The nation received notice of the proceeding almost one month later and moved to intervene in Florida court. The nation then filed suit in Oklahoma, which had continuing jurisdiction as a result of the adoption-expense motion. The nation sought a temporary restraining order against Michael Nomura (defendant), the administrator of the Oklahoma Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, for the purpose of preventing Nomura from approving the child’s removal from Oklahoma. The Oklahoma court found that the adoption matter constituted a child-custody proceeding and therefore ICWA and the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act (OICWA) applied. The Oklahoma court held that Nomura had the duty to ensure that ICWA regulations were followed and that the governmental interest in promoting the interests of the nation outweighed whatever parental rights remained with the birth mother after she relinquished her rights. The agency appealed, arguing, among other things, that OICWA conflicted with ICWA because ICWA applied only to involuntary proceedings but OICWA applied to voluntary and involuntary proceedings, rendering OICWA unconstitutional.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Watt, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership