Supreme Court Upholds Law Enabling Tribes To Bar Non-Native Families From Adopting Native Children

Supreme Court Upholds Federal Statute Prioritizing Native American Families in Child Placement

In a landmark 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that requires states to place Native American children with Native families, even if it may not be in the child’s best interest.

“The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners’ challenges to the statute,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority opinion for Haaland v. Brackeen.

Created in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) aims to preserve Native American culture by prioritizing Native families in the adoption of Native children.

Complex Issues and Divided Opinions

Justice Barrett, joined by the Court’s three Democrat-appointed justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, formed the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

However, concerns arise as the law prioritizes placing the child in a Native family, even if it goes against the child’s best interest or if the Native family is not of the same tribe. Tribal leaders are granted the power to remove children from non-Native foster families and override the wishes of the child’s biological parents.

For example, a Native child in Minnesota was taken away from a loving non-Native family who wanted to adopt her and placed with her grandmother, who had lost her foster license due to a criminal conviction.

The lead plaintiffs in the case, Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, fostered a 10-month-old child and sought to adopt him with his parents’ support. However, because the child’s parents belonged to the Navajo and Cherokee tribes, and both tribes opposed the adoption, the child was ordered to be removed from the family and placed in New Mexico under the ICWA.

Several families challenged the law on constitutional grounds, arguing that it violated states’ rights and created race-based decisions. While the Court rejected the federalism claim, it did not address the equal protection claim, leaving it for lower courts to decide.

Justice Thomas dissented, contending that the ICWA encroached on states’ police powers and that the Indian Commerce Clause did not apply to children. Justice Alito criticized the majority opinion for disregarding the best interests of the child. Justice Kavanaugh emphasized the serious nature of the equal protection claim and its potential violation of fundamental principles.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, highlighted the historical mistreatment of Native Americans and the significance of the ICWA in addressing past injustices.

Reactions to the Decision

The Biden Administration and tribal sovereignty advocates praised the Supreme Court’s decision. President Biden stated, “Our Nation’s painful history looms large over today’s decision. In the not-so-distant past, Native children were stolen from the arms of the people who loved them.”

The Cherokee Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Oneida Nation, and Quinault Indian Nation issued a joint statement expressing hope that the decision would put an end to political attacks on tribal sovereignty and bring stability to Indian law.

The Choctaw Nation also welcomed the Court’s recognition of the benefits of the ICWA and its decision to uphold the law.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases