Judge Issues Opinion Allowing Indian Education Case on Behalf of Montana Students and Tribes to Proceed
Students and Tribes will get to prove their allegations that state agencies are not abiding by constitutional and statutory Indian Education mandates
GREAT FALLS, Mont. — Judge Amy Eddy of the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court has issued a written opinion denying the state’s motion to dismiss Yellow Kidney, et al. v. Montana Office of Public Instruction et al. The lawsuit seeks to address Montana's failure to fulfill a constitutional and statutory mandate – contained in the Indian Education clause of the state constitution and the Indian Education for All (IEFA) statutes – to implement public education about Native American history and culture, with a particular emphasis on Montana tribes. The proposed class action lawsuit was filed against Montata state education agencies and officials by students, parents, guardians, and six tribal governments.
In her written opinion, Judge Eddy held: “The individual Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a past, present and threated injury to their fundamental constitutional right to learn about the distinct and unique heritage of American Indians in a culturally responsive manner. The Tribal Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a past, present and future injury to their ability to work cooperatively with educational agencies and personnel in developing and providing Indian education. The Plaintiffs have alleged these injuries have or will result in racism, bullying, stereotyping, prejudice, a dangerous school environment, mental and emotional harm, and loss of cultural heritage. These injuries are not abstract, conjectural or hypothetical.”
“We shed tears of gratitude for Judge Eddy’s ruling because it’s a beacon of hope in fulfilling a long overdue promise made to our Montana Public School students and Tribal Nations,” said plaintiff Shauna Yellow Kidney (Blackfeet). “The future of Montana is brighter from every perspective, in every generation with the power of collaboration, sparked by Indian Education’s proper implementation and oversight.”
The lawsuit seeks accountability and notes state education agencies give tax dollars to Montana public schools for Indian education without requiring schools to report how they invested the funding, developed curriculum with tribes, or taught the subject.
"The Defendants’ argument that despite the plain statutory language, they specifically have no responsibility or authority to enforce the IEFA is completely unfounded," said Judge Eddy in the decision. "The duties prescribed by the IEFA apply to 'every educational agency' and 'all education personnel' and the Defendants present no cogent argument they should not be included in these terms."
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Montana, and the Native American Rights Fund filed Yellow Kidney, et al. v. Montana Office of Public Instruction, et al. in Montana District Court in Cascade County against the agencies and officials responsible for implementing the state’s Indian education provisions: the Montana Office of Public Instruction, the Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen, the Montana Board of Public Education, and Montana Board of Public Education Chair Darlene Schottle. Plaintiffs are Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Fort Belknap Indian Community, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Little Shell Tribe, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Crow Tribe, and 18 individual student, parent, and guardian plaintiffs.
The full written opinion is available online here: /cases/yellow-kidney-et-al-v-montana-office-public-instruction-et-al?document=Order-Denying-Motion-to-Dismiss#legal-documents
Racial Justice
Yellow Kidney, et al. v. Montana Office of Public Instruction, et al.
Racial Justice
Yellow Kidney, et al. v. Montana Office of Public Instruction, et al.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Statement on House AI Task Force ReportACLU Statement on House AI Task Force Report
WASHINGTON — Today, the House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) issued its final report, marking an important step in recognizing the serious risks of discrimination and bias posed by AI systems — particularly in law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology. The report recognizes that discrimination and bias may arise in AI systems due to their design, training data, or failures by end users. The report also investigates the complex considerations around deepfakes, open AI systems, and free speech, and urges Congress to pass narrow legislation to address concrete harms. In response to the House AI Task Force final report, Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement: “The ACLU commends the Task Force for recognizing that AI systems are harming people right now through discriminatory outcomes and supercharged surveillance. Curbing those abuses of AI is not a partisan issue, and more concrete action is needed to protect civil rights, while maintaining states’ authority to build on those protections. The Task Force is appropriately cautious when wrestling with issues around deepfakes, open-source AI, digital identity, and other issues, recognizing that legislators should consider a wide array of tailored tools to address real, not speculative, harms while respecting civil rights and civil liberties.” The House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence report can be found here. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Racial Justice
Human Rights
Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights IssueWhy the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue
On International Human Rights Day, the ACLU is advocating for a long-sought after reparatory justice to end the continued abuses against Black and brown communities. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key ProtectionsACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key Protections
WASHINGTON — The Biden-Harris administration today released its National Security Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence (AI), establishing guidelines for how the U.S. government uses AI in national security programs, such as counterterrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and defense. The use of AI to automate and expand national security activities poses some of the greatest dangers to people’s lives and civil liberties. Agencies are increasingly exploring the use of AI in decisions about who to surveil, who to stop and search at the airport, who to add to government watchlists, and even who is a military target. While the government’s policy includes some important steps forward — such as requiring national security agencies to better track and assess their AI systems for risks and prohibiting a subset of dangerous AI uses — it falls far short in other critical areas, leaving glaring gaps with respect to independent oversight, transparency, notice, and redress. The policy imposes few substantive safeguards on a wide range of AI-driven activities, by and large allowing agencies to decide for themselves how to mitigate the risks posed by national security systems that have immense consequences for people’s lives and rights. As we have repeatedly seen before, this is a recipe for dangerous technologies to proliferate in secret. “Despite acknowledging the considerable risks of AI, this policy does not go nearly far enough to protect us from dangerous and unaccountable AI systems. National security agencies must not be left to police themselves as they increasingly subject people in the United States to powerful new technologies,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “If developing national security AI systems is an urgent priority for the country, then adopting critical rights and privacy safeguards is just as urgent. Without transparency, independent oversight, and built-in mechanisms for individuals to obtain accountability when AI systems err or fail, the policy’s safeguards are inadequate and place our civil rights and civil liberties at risk.” For years, the American Civil Liberties Union has been urging far stronger safeguards and transparency about the AI tools that national security agencies are deploying, the rules constraining their use, and the dangers these systems pose to fairness, privacy, and due process. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and VendorsACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and Vendors
WASHINGTON — Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released a roadmap for artificial intelligence (AI) best practices, designed to ensure that emerging technologies such as AI enhance job quality, benefit workers, and comply with existing employment laws when they are used in the workplace. The best practices, pursuant to President Biden’s executive order on the development and use of AI, include recommendations for AI system developers and employers that prioritize workers’ experiences and empowerment throughout the entire AI lifecycle – from design to use and oversight. These practices also call on employers and developers to create standards and processes to identify and mitigate risks from AI systems, such as threats to health and safety, civil rights, privacy, fair labor rights, and labor organizing prior to a developer marketing them or an employer deploying them, and recommend turning to different systems when sufficient mitigation is not possible. “We applaud DOL for issuing best practices for use of AI that center workers’ empowerment, civil rights, privacy, and safety protections and call on developers and employers to adopt critical guardrails in developing, procuring and using AI systems. Employers and developers should take note, as many have been burying their heads in the sand on their risk of legal liability with respect to AI tools,” said Olga Akselrod, senior staff attorney of the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “Following these best practices for AI can help employers and developers ensure that they do not violate existing civil rights and other employment laws that protect workers.” The best practices also recommend transparency measures through conducting and publishing impact assessments, notice and recourse for impacted workers, and measures to minimize worker displacement. The DOL also stated that employers should minimize electronic monitoring and avoid unnecessary collection or retention of worker data.