Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its decision in the Haaland v. Brackeen case, which ruled in favor of upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act. The decision was 7 to 2, with Justice Thomas and Justice Alito filing dissenting opinions.
A birth mother, foster parents, adoptive parents, and the State of Texas challenged ICWA’s constitutionality, asserting the law violated the anti commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment.
Since 1992, SCOTUS has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from “commandeering” state sovereign power, forcing states to pass laws or enforce federal law.
The petitioners also argued that ICWA employs racial classifications that unlawfully hinder non-Indian families from fostering or adopting Indian children.
SCOTUS found that ICWA does not violate the anti commandeering principle because the law states that “any party” who initiates involuntary proceedings are required to make “active efforts” to keep the Indian family together and thus does not require the use of Texas sovereign powers.
In the decision, SCOTUS points out that Texas has no equal protection rights of its own and it cannot assert equal protection claims on behalf of its citizens against the federal government.
Because Texas was not injured by the placement preferences, it does not have standing to bring equal protection or non delegation claims.
The Muscogee (Creek) Nation issued the following statement on the SCOTUS decision:
“Muscogee (Creek) Nation Officials were pleased to hear the opinion released by the Supreme Court today in Brackeen v. Haaland.
The Brackeen v. Haaland case revolves around the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law that regulates the adoption of Native American children. The law prioritizes the child’s extended family, tribal members, or other Indian families in adoption and fostering. Non-Native individuals, along with three states, filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that the statute is unconstitutional.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation, along with nearly 500 other tribes, signed an amicus brief detailing the importance of upholding ICWA as an exercise of the trust responsibility and the political importance of Native nations.
Today, the Supreme Court sided with tribal nations and upheld the constitutionality of ICWA.”
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin
In addition to the ICWA decision, the Court also issued its decision in Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin.
In this case the tribe in question was using sovereign immunity to attempt to collect payday loan debts from Coughlin after he had declared bankruptcy, in violation of U.S. bankruptcy code.
SCOTUS held that the language of the bankruptcy code, designating “foreign and domestic” governments applied to tribal governments as well.
The decision delineates that U.S. bankruptcy code, “unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, categorically. Tribes are indisputably governments. Therefore, §106(a) unmistakably abrogates their sovereign immunity too.”
