Haaland v. Brackeen

What happened

Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978 out of concern that "an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies." Texas and individual families who had sought to adopt or foster Indian children challenged the Act. One couple, the Brackeens, had fostered A. L. M., whose mother is a member of the Navajo Nation and whose father is a member of the Cherokee Nation. When they sought to adopt him, the Navajo and Cherokee Nations did not support it, and ICWA's placement preferences ranked a proposed Navajo family ahead of them.

The challengers argued that ICWA exceeds Congress's power, that its placement preferences violate equal protection, that its provisions commandeer state officials, and that one provision violates the nondelegation doctrine. The en banc Fifth Circuit had upheld some provisions and struck others, including some under the Tenth Amendment.

In an opinion by Justice Barrett, joined by six other justices, the Supreme Court reversed in part. It declined to disturb the conclusion that ICWA is consistent with Congress's Article I authority, writing: "Congress's power to legislate with respect to Indians is well established and broad, but it is not unbounded." It held that the challenged requirements do not commandeer the States. It did not reach the equal protection and nondelegation claims because no party had standing. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the equal protection issue "remains undecided."

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error