Haaland v. Brackeen

The Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act's placement rules for Native American children in foster care and adoption cases. It rejected the claim that the law improperly directs state officials in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Court ruled 7-2. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan; Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh wrote concurrences, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote dissents.

Majority

Barrett

Roberts

Sotomayor

Kagan

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Jackson

Dissent

Thomas

Alito

“Congress's power to legislate with respect to Indian tribes is “plenary and exclusive.””

State courts and child-welfare agencies must continue applying ICWA's placement preferences in covered cases. Native children, their families, tribes, and prospective foster or adoptive parents are directly affected.

Lower courts, state agencies, and tribes will continue to apply ICWA in covered foster-care and adoption proceedings. The Court did not decide the separate equal-protection and nondelegation claims because the challengers lacked standing (a legal right to bring those claims).

The Court upheld ICWA's placement rules and rejected the argument that they violate the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering rule.

Native children, tribes, families, prospective foster or adoptive parents, state courts, and child-welfare agencies are affected in covered custody cases.

State agencies and courts continue applying ICWA's placement preferences. Tribes and families will continue using the law in covered child-custody proceedings.