Claire Newman focuses her practice on representing tribes in litigation and advocacy at the state and federal level. Among other issues, Ms. Newman has assisted client tribes in matters involving sovereign immunity, water rights, self-determination, treaty rights, Indian child welfare, climate change, and race discrimination.
Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Newman served as a law clerk to the Honorable Louis J. Menendez at the Juneau Superior Court and as a judicial extern to the Honorable John Coughenour at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In March 2016, Ms. Newman served as a special deputy prosecutor in the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office where she co-tried a felony jury trial.
While in law school, Ms. Newman was the Managing Editor of the Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. She was also the University of Washington fellow for Senator Maria Cantwell and a law clerk at the Native American Rights Fund in Boulder, Colorado.
Prior to attending law school, Ms. Newman assisted families and tribes in South Dakota to assert their rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act and to build capacity within tribal child welfare systems. Additionally after her undergraduate studies, Ms. Newman taught middle school on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.
Ms. Newman was recognized as a Washington “Rising Star” for Native American Law in 2020 and the three years immediately preceding by Super Lawyers magazine. She was recipient of the firm's "Pro Bono Associate of the Year Award" in 2019.
Represent Indian tribe in Washington State in ongoing treaty fishing rights litigation (U.S. v. Washington).
Obtained a denial of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court ensuring that an Arizona Court of Appeals decision, requiring a father to provide “active efforts” to mother under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912, would stand. S.S. v. Stephanie H., 241 Ariz. 419, 388 P.3d 569 (Ct. App.), review denied (Apr. 18, 2017), cert. denied sub nom. S.S. v. Colorado River Indian Tribes, 138 S. Ct. 380 (2017).
Obtained a denial of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court ensuring that a Utah Supreme Court decision holding that federal law applied to the definition of “parent” under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1903 and that an unwed Indian father who had not been notified of his child’s birth or adoption had the right to intervene in adoption proceedings. Matter of Adoption of B.B., 2017 UT 59, cert. denied sub nom. R.K.B. v. E.T., No. 17-942, 2018 WL 1460788 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2018).
Represented the Snoqualmie Tribe in breach of contract litigation related to excavation work for the Tribe’s new administration building. On September 10, 2015, victory was secured for the Snoqualmie Tribe.
Reversed an order placing an Indian child with non-Indian family off the reservation resulting in the return of the child to his Grandparents who had raised him since birth.
Insights View All
University of Washington School of Law, J.D. (2012)
Carleton College, B.A., Political Science (2005) cum laude
Juneau Superior Court - Honorable Louis J. Menendez (Aug 2012-Oct 2013)
Washington State Bar Indian Law Section, Chair
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.