Worth a Sunday morning listen:

Traversecityist shares an online audio drama called The Tanner Deposition that delves into United States v. Michigan and treaty fishing rights

By Wenona Singel on October 25, 2026

https://traversecityist.com/the-tanner-deposition Click the link above to open the three-part audio drama. Each part is between 28 – 30 minutes long.

From Traverscityist:

The Tanner Deposition, an audio drama in three parts, is based on the deposition of Helen Hornbeck Tanner (1916-2011) for United States v. State of Michigan. Tanner’s testimony included pivotal evidence which helped Michigan’s Indian tribes reclaim treaty-protected fishing rights. Created and directed by Gretchen Carr, it is made possible through the generous support of the Leelanau Press Research Fellowship and the Leelanau Historical Society. Introduction In 1836, the United States Government and Michigan Indian tribes signed the Treaty of Washington. In this treaty, and in subsequent treaties, the tribes sought permanent land bases, along with securing their right to hunt, fish and gather, which they had done for centuries and continued to do so in the Great Lakes and inland waters. That changed in 1872 when the Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano illegally terminated treaty obligations without Congressional approval. In 1930 a Michigan Supreme Court decision erroneously interpreted treaty law in a decision that gave the State control over Indian hunting and fishing. This ruling led to decades of conflict, including violent clashes between Indian fishermen and state authorities. Following a series of U.S. supreme court decisions in the 1960s, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan in 1973 to reclaim these treaty-protected rights. This case entitled United States v. Michigan was filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Bay Mills Indian Community and Sault Saint Marie Tribe subsequently intervened as plaintiffs. In the years to follow, the Grand Traverse Band, Little River Band, and Little Traverse Bay Bands would also intervene as plaintiffs. Their claims rested on two foundations: evidence of the tribes’ long-standing commercial fishing practices, and the legal principle that treaties be interpreted as their Indian signers would have understood them. To establish those facts, the tribes and the United States brought in a team of expert witnesses which included anthropologists, archaeologists and ethnohistorians. Central to the case was the testimony of Dr. Helen Hornbeck Tanner. A senior research fellow at the Newberry Library. Tanner was known as one of the country’s foremost researchers of Great Lakes Indian history. Her research drew on federal land allotment records, genealogies, agent correspondence, missionary diaries, local histories, and oral tradition. In depositions that took place in January and April of 1977, Tanner testified that the United States Senate altered the 1836 Treaty without prior consent, and that the 1855 treaty was fraudulent. She resisted the imposition of Anglo-American legal terminology on Indigenous history. The attorneys for the State of Michigan approached her with visible skepticism, and questioned her financial dependence on litigation to suggest bias. They dismissed oral tradition as unobjective, and they repeatedly pressed her to translate Indigenous concepts into rigid legal categories. Dr. Tanner’s unflinching testimony helped to prove that Great Lakes tribes had fished treaty waters for generations, and that the treaty language protected their traditional way of life. In 1979, U.S. District Judge Noel Fox affirmed the tribes’ fishing rights. The ruling, known as the Fox Decision, sparked a resurgence of tribal organization in Michigan. Of all her service, Dr. Tanner considered her testimony in the United States versus Michigan to be the most significant of her career. Cast The Voice of Helen Hornbeck Tanner, Witness, Historian and Newberry Fellow is performed by Molly Tewson, who resides in Iowa and spends her summers at her family cottage on the north shore of Crystal Lake. She is the daughter of Dr. Tanner. The Voice of Gregory T. Taylor, on behalf of the Defendant, State of Michigan is performed by John McKinley, who resides in Traverse City, Michigan. The Voice of Stewart H. Freeman, on behalf of the Defendant, State of Michigan is performed by Barry Bricks, who resides in Benzie County, Michigan. The Voice of Peter W. Steketee, on behalf of the Defendant, Michigan United Conservation Club, is performed by Bill Pilgrim who resides in Benzie County, Michigan. The Introduction is performed by Mark L. Wilson. Mark L. Wilson, MPA, is an audio and video producer based in Traverse City, Michigan, and an enrolled citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Through his company, New Leonard Media, he works with Tribal organizations, nonprofits, and artists to share their stories. He served two terms on the Grand Traverse Band Tribal Council, including as Vice Chair, has served as Mayor Pro Tem on the Traverse City Commission, and currently serves on numerous board and committees throughout the region. The Epilogue is performed by Jeremy Rice. Jeremy Rice resides in Northport, Michigan and is a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. He manages cultural resources with Dirt Divers Cultural Resource Management, a Native-owned cultural resource management firm based in Cass Lake, Minnesota.

Data Centers in Indian Country

 August 20, 2026 Wenona Singel

As some Tribes reject hyperscale data centers in Indian Country, others are embracing it. Others are imposing moratoria on data centers to allow for further studies and policy development. Below is a snapshot of what Tribes are doing. It illustrates the diversity of Tribes in the US, and it shows Tribes acting as governments, regulators, landowners, utility operators, infrastructure owners, investors, economic development actors, and political communities as they decide what technological development should look like on their lands.

• Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma: Released a Data Center Task Force report on August 5, 2026 and is now banning hyperscale data centers on tribally owned and trust lands.

• Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: On March 7, 2026, the Tribal Council unanimously voted for a moratorium on generative-AI and hyperscale data center development within its jurisdiction. The resolution also bars “any inquiries, discussions and/or developments concerning any entity seeking to develop a data center of any size within the Seminole Nation during the moratorium period.”

• Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians: Supports a moratorium. The Tribe adopted a resolution on May 19, 2026 supporting the state of Michigan establishing a temporary moratorium on large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining until a Tribal consultation process is established, including comprehensive environmental and cultural impact assessments on any legislation involving large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining.

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation: Rejected. In November 2025, the National Council rejected a measure that would have developed a data center at Looped Square Ranch, where land is being used for Tribal food sovereignty.

• Hoopa Valley Tribe: Supports, under Tribal ownership. Hoopa opened a new data center on July 17, 2026, but it’s not a hyperscale data center. It’s a tribally-owned facility serving as the operational hub of Hoopa’s fiber-to-home broadband network and Acorn Connected, its Tribal internet service provider.

• Forest County Potawatomi Community: Yes, and has been doing it for years. Its enterprise Data Holdings operates a commercial data center in Milwaukee on trust land and is 100% Tribally owned. It opened in 2013 as a $33 million wholesale data center and now provides colocation/private cloud services and hosts the Milwaukee Internet Exchange.

• Navajo Nation: Yes. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority operates a data center in Shiprock on the Navajo Nation offering colocation, virtualization and high-speed optical backhaul to off-reservation points-of-presence in Albuquerque and Phoenix. NTUA is a Navajo Nation enterprise, and the facility serves both Navajo and outside government and business customers.

• Colusa Indian Community: Actively pursuing AI infrastructure. The Community’s Colusa Indian Energy announced a partnership in March 2026 with Strata Expanse to develop an AI and energy infrastructure campus on the land of the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community in Northern California. Plans include expanding on-site energy generation capacity to more than 100 MW over the next 18 months.
  

• Osage Nation: Debating a data center approved in February 2026 by the City of Sand Springs on the Osage reservation. The proposed data center would be operated by Google, and construction is planned to begin in 2027. The developers are seeking support from the Osage Minerals Council, which controls the nation’s 1.47 million acre oil and gas subsurface.

Additional Resources

Tribal Nations and Data Centers: Emerging Issues and Resources, USET

AI Data Centers and Tribes: Emerging Federal and Policy State Trends and Tribal Governance Options, Tana Fitzpatrick, Director, Native Nations Center for Tribal Policy Research

Honor the Earth Data Center Tracker (interactive crowd-sourced map)

Indigenous Peoples Push Back as Data Centers Expand Across North America, John Ahni Schertow in Intercontinental Cry Magazine

The Cloud is Drying our Rivers: Water Usage of AI Data Centers, Charlotte Jennings, EthicalGeo

Honor the Earth DataCenterTracker; Earthstar Geographics; U.S. Census Bureau

 

THE FIGHTERS:

https://datacentermadness.com/ 

Louis LaRose Walks On

Matthew L.M. Fletcher |Nov 13| Turtle Talk Blog

Louis LaRose, former chair of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, has walked on. News profile here.

As chairman, Mr. LaRose testified on behalf of the bill that would become the Indian Child Welfare Act. Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield quoted extensively from Louis’s testimony. Footnote 25 reads:

In large part, the concerns that emerged during the congressional hearings on the ICWA were based on studies showing recurring developmental problems encountered during adolescence by Indian children raised in a white environment. See n. 1, supra.See also 1977 Hearings at 114 (statement of American Academy of Child Psychiatry); S.Rep. No. 95-597, p. 43 (1977) (hereinafter Senate Report). More generally, placements in non-Indian homes were seen as "depriving the child of his or her tribal and cultural heritage." Id. at 45; see also 124 Cong.Rec. 38102-38103 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Lagomarsino). The Senate Report on the ICWA incorporates the testimony in this sense of Louis La Rose, chairman of the Winnebago Tribe, before the American Indian Policy Review Commission:"I think the cruelest trick that the white man has ever done to Indian children is to take them into adoption courts, erase all of their records and send them off to some nebulous family that has a value system that is A-1 in the State of Nebraska and that child reaches 16 or 17, he is a little brown child residing in a white community, and he goes back to the reservation and he has absolutely no idea who his relatives are, and they effectively make him a non-person, and I think . . . they destroy him."Senate Report at 43. Thus, the conclusion seems justified that, as one state court has put it, "[t]he Act is based on the fundamental assumption that it is in the Indian child's best interest that its relationship to the tribe be protected." In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz., at 204, 635 P.2d at 189.

Thanks to Lucas LaRose.

Zoom Discussion on Brackeen ICWA CASE November 9th - free to register

 

Brackeen Post-Oral Argument Discussion – via Zoom

Arianna Morseau Nov 7

Please join the Indigenous Law and Policy Center this Wednesday, November 9, at 6:00 p.m. ET for a post-oral argument discussion of Brackeen over Zoom. Wenona Singel will be moderating this conversation with speakers Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Melody McCoy and April Youpee-Roll.

The link to register is here. Please see the below flyer for more information.

post-oral-argument-flyer-final-1Download

Videos are not displayed in this email and must be viewed on the website.

Four White Men to Argue Brackeen

 

It’s now been 21+ years since the last Indigenous person argued a Supreme Court; 39 tribal or individual Indian parties since that time.

 This blog is #ProudtoProtectICWA - keep good thoughts, readers.

Digging up Human Remains in Michigan

 

The End of a Michigan Law Allowing Scientists to Dig Up “Aboriginal Inhabitants”

September 28, 2022 Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Came across this short note in Indian Talk, a 1973 newsletter by and about Michigan Indians and a precursor to the original Turtle Talk, referencing a federal lawsuit filed to have Michigan public law 750.160 declared unconstitutional. That law prohibited Dr. Frankenstein and others from digging up graves, but granted an exception to Indiana Jones in case he found some Indian bones:

Shay Elbaum at the Michigan law library found a 1974 law repealing the part about “aboriginal inhabitants.”

Can’t find a record of the lawsuit, however. It probably went away when the state legislature repealed the exception.

The Heart of federal Indian policy #ICWA

 

Neoshia Roemer on ICWA as Reproductive Justice

Matthew L.M. Fletcher Aug 25

Neoshia Roemer has posted “The Indian Child Welfare Act as Reproductive Justice,” forthcoming in the Boston University Law Review, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

After decades of abuse through family regulation, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (“ICWA”) to prevent the breakup of Indian families and promote tribal sovereignty.  While ICWA seems like an outlier that addresses one category of children, it is not an outlier. Rather, I argue that ICWA is a tool of reproductive justice. By formulating a legal rights framework for reproductive justice in American jurisprudence, I discuss how the reproductive justice movement is grounded in U.S. law beyond the right to terminate a pregnancy that the Supreme Court abrogated in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. By looking at the history of reproductive rights in American Indian communities, I discuss how family regulation challenges reproductive rights and tribal sovereignty considering Dobbs and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. Indian child removals exist in the same history, context, and policy that disrupted the reproductive rights of American Indian families and tribal sovereignty in other areas. Before concluding that ICWA is still good law and good policy to disrupt family regulation and protect the reproductive rights of American Indian peoples, I consider where challenges to ICWA in Haaland v. Brackeen fit into this paradigm and the ongoing need for the protection of tribal sovereignty and reproductive rights for American Indian peoples.  For nearly 400 years, the disruption of reproductive rights, including family regulation, has been at the heart of federal Indian policy. The current frame of family regulation as “saving” children means that it is often divorced from the notion of reproductive rights.  As the history behind and contemporary challenges to ICWA demonstrate, it should not, and cannot, be separated from the other reproductive justice issues facing American Indian communities. To strengthen legal protections for American Indian people that disrupt these government interventions, like ICWA, is to realize reproductive rights more fully in the United States.

Highly recommended!!!

Newspaper Editorials Perpetuate Misinformation on ICWA

 

Two Worlds is for sale at Walmart.com

Sarah Deer, Elise Higgins & Thomas White on Racist Editorializing about ICWA

April 30, 2022 Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Sarah Deer, Elise Higgins, and Thomas White have published “Editorializing ICWA: 40 Years of Colonial Commentary” in UCLA’s Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance.

An excerpt:

Despite studies concluding ICWA has been a successful law to curb the crisis of child removal in Indian country when implemented correctly, a significant number of attorneys, think tanks, and politicians argue that ICWA actually harms Native children and should be repealed. Others argue that ICWA has served its purpose and is no longer necessary. This article considers how newspaper editorials perpetuate misinformation about ICWA, its history and its purpose. Moreover, we explore how anti-ICWA authors employ “words of colonialism”—in particular, the use of derogatory words and phrases to portray Native people as bad parents and Tribal Nations as dysfunctional. Providing inaccurate and racist characterizations of ICWA is one of the primary tactics used by editorials to delegitimize ICWA. Emotionally triggering and wholly inaccurate language is often employed as a sensationalist method to grab the reader’s attention by presenting the law in terms of clear-cut morality.

Frederick Thompson Richards, Life Magazine, 1900  (How long have you been civilized?)

Strict Scrutiny Podcast on Brackeen Cases

 from Turtle Talk Blog

Here is “Going Down Clutching the Constitution.”

“US Supreme Court to take up Texas challenge to Indian Child Welfare Act”

 Kate Fort on the Texas Standard Radio Show re: ICWA

March 8, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here: “US Supreme Court to take up Texas challenge to Indian Child Welfare Act.”

Rawhide Press [Spokane Tribe] 1982

Indian Children and Their Guardians ad Litem (GALs)

 

BABY Veronica :  Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

From the Turtle Talk blog:

North Carolina Supreme Court on Reason to Know [ICWA] by Kate Fort

 (click headline)

Fletcher & Fort: “Indian Children and Their Guardians ad Litem”

November 25, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kate Fort and I published a short paper for a Boston University Law Review mini-symposium on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: “Indian Children and Their Guardians ad Litem.”

An excerpt:

One of the primary goals of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is to limit the influence or bias of state workers in decisions placing American Indian children out of their home and community.¹ While this focus usually concerns state social workers, the officials who most often seek removal of a child, or the courts, the body that issues the orders and opinions, guardians ad litem (GALs) receive less attention.² Despite this lack of attention, GALs exert a similar level of influence as state social workers. In Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl,³ the role of the GAL was unusual but critical – the GAL, while officially appointed by the court, was handpicked by the adoptive parents.⁴ The role of the GAL remains understudied in the ICWA literature, though GALs continue to exert enormous influence in the courts. Unfortunately, many GALs throughout the nation subvert the national policy embodied by the ICWA by advocating against the implementation of the statute in case after case.⁵

There are three other papers in the symposium:

Perspective I by Professor Barbara Ann Atwood is available here, 

Perspective II by Professor James G. Dwyer is available here, and

Perspective III by Professors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone is available here.

The 1950s plan to erase Indian Country

 Yes, this happened...

APM Reports: “Uprooted: The 1950s plan to erase Indian Country”

January 15, 2022 Matthew L.M. Fletcher

A really interesting look at the BIA Urban Relocation project.

BIA pamphlet from the Chicago Relocation Office. Edward E. Ayer Collection at Newberry Library.

Canada does it first, is America next?

I don't know about you but I saw this coming - that the Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) in Canada would end with money paid to victims. Canada is first. Will America be next? Or Australia?... Blog Editor TLH

In Largest Settlement in its History, Canada Comes to Agreement in Principle in Child Welfare Lawsuit

January 7, 2022 Kate Fort

NY Times Coverage here

The Canadian government announced Tuesday that it had reached what it called the largest settlement in Canada’s history, paying $31.5 billion to fix the nation’s discriminatory child welfare system and compensate the Indigenous people harmed by it.

Agreement in principle/press release here

For those who were following this case, it involves the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which is led by Cindy Blackstock. The settlement attempts to reform Child and Family Services and address Jordan’s Principle. This is a major settlement and significant milestone for Native children and families in Canada.

Lawyering ICWA | White Mother to a Dark Race

Fletcher and Singel have posted "Lawyering the Indian Child Welfare Act," forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review's upcoming symposium on civil rights lawyering. Here is the abstract:

This Essay describes how the statutory structure of child welfare laws enables lawyers and courts to exploit deep-seated stereotypes about American Indian people rooted in systemic racism to undermine the enforcement of the rights of Indian families and tribes. Even where Indian custodians and tribes are able to protect their rights in court, their adversaries use those same advantages on appeal to attack the Constitutional validity of the law. The primary goal of this Essay is to help expose those structural issues and the ethically troublesome practices of adoption attorneys as the most important ICWA case in history, Brackeen v. Haaland, reaches the Supreme Court.

MUST READ book:

White Mother to a Dark Race Settler Colonialism, Maternalism,  and the Removal of Indigenous Children  in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940 AUTHOR Margaret D. Jacobs 592 pages 24 photographs, 2 maps, index Paperback March 2011 978-0-8032-3516-8 buy

In The News

 Here are some links if you are interested in the latest news:

Indian Law Issues in the News (10/25/2021) by Wenona T. Singel

 

Detroit News: First lady Jill Biden visits Saginaw Chippewa center to discuss youth mental health

Arizona Capitol Times: Ducey gives tribe $30M for water rights

NYTs: Can This Tribe of ‘Salmon People’ Pull Off One More Win?

WaPo (April article): Canada’s Supreme Court says some Native Americans who are not Canadian citizens can hunt in British Columbia

Grist: EPA finally has an action plan to improve water infrastructure and sanitation for US tribes

AP: Oklahoma court adds Quapaw Nation to those covered by McGirt ruling

Curbed: A Lenape Tribe Finally Wrests Its Sacred Site Back from Developers

AZ Central: Indigenous peoples seek greater voice and more influence at COP26 climate conference

NYTs: How Is ‘Dune’ So Prescient About Climate Change? Thank This Native American Tribe.

KTAR: Apaches ask appeals court to oppose transfer of Arizona land

The Hill: Human rights panel will hear case claiming US regulators violated Navajo tribe's rights: report

Tulsa World: Tulsa, Owasso join state in seeking to overturn McGirt ruling

Great Lakes Now: Enbridge temporarily stops Michigan pipeline due to protests

NYTs: Film Club: ‘A Conversation With Native Americans on Race’

Salt Lake Tribune: Survivors see a link between Indigenous boarding schools’ harsh discipline and later domestic violence

Keloland: South Dakota ACLU says Dept. of Education may have violated federal and constitutional law by removing elements of Native American culture and history from draft of state social studies standards

 

Systemic Racism and the Dispossession of Indigenous Wealth in the United States

 I always say... "The system isn't broken, it was built this way." Blog Editor TLH

Fletcher on Systemic Racism and the Dispossession of Indigenous Wealth in the United States

October 20, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I developed a short paper for the Federal Reserve Bank’s series on Racism and the Economy, “Systemic Racism and the Dispossession of Indigenous Wealth in the United States,” posted here.

Here is a video of today’s program. April Youpee-Roll was part of the program, too, and provided important commentary on heirship and federal Indian policy.

 

In the News: Bipartisan Coalition in Defense of Indian Child Welfare Act Protections Before the U.S. Supreme Court

 Indian Law Issues (10/8/2021)

Turtle Talk

NPR: The Indian Child Welfare Act Faces Its Biggest Challenge Yet (featuring former ILPC staff attorney and current University of Idaho College of Law Asst. Prof. Neoshia Roemer!)

NYTs: After Denying Care to Black Natives, Indian Health Service Reverses Policy

White House: A Proclamation on Indigenous Peoples’ Day 2021

Reuters: ‘Solar warriors’ train for Native America energy fight

California Attorney General: Attorney General Bonta Leads Bipartisan Coalition of 26 Attorneys General in Defense of Indian Child Welfare Act Protections Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers prep bill to protect Indigenous children in Utah’s child welfare system

 

**

Attorney General Bonta Leads Bipartisan Coalition in Defense of Indian Child Welfare Act Protections Before the U.S. Supreme Court

1. Press Release
2. Attorney General Bonta Leads Bipartisan Coalition in Defense…

Friday, October 8, 2021

Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a bipartisan coalition of 26 attorneys general in an amicus brief in support of the United States and four federally recognized tribes in their efforts to uphold critical protections guaranteed under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen and Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, the amicus brief highlights the states’ compelling interest in standing up for the well-being of all children, including Native American children, in state child-custody proceedings.

“The truth is that there has been a long, ugly history in the United States of policies that had the effect of separating Native American children from their culture, families, and communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “ICWA is a critical tool for protecting Native American children, their parents, and tribes — and it is under threat. If we are to truly honor the history and legacy of our tribal partners, we must act. Alongside a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general, that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case and correct the errors the court of appeals made in its decision.” 

Congress enacted ICWA in 1978 in response to a serious and pervasive problem: State and private parties were initiating state child-custody proceedings that removed Native American children from the custody of their parents — often without good cause — and placed them in the custody of non-tribal adoptive and foster homes. That practice harmed children and posed an existential threat to the continuity and vitality of tribal communities. To address this, Congress established minimum federal standards governing the removal of Native American children from their families. ICWA’s provisions safeguard the rights of Native American children, parents, and tribes in state child-custody proceedings, and seek to promote the placement of Native American children with members of their extended families or with other tribal homes. In the four decades since Congress enacted ICWA, the statute has become the foundation of state-tribal relations in the realm of child custody and family services. Collectively, the coalition states are home to approximately 86% of federally recognized tribes in the United States.

In the amicus brief, the coalition asserts that: 

• ICWA is a critical tool for protecting Native American families and tribes, and fostering state-tribal collaboration;
• The court of appeals incorrectly concluded that several of ICWA’s provisions violate the anti-commandeering doctrine; and
• ICWA’s preferences for the placement of Native American children with other Native American families and foster homes do not violate equal protection. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.