The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling recently, affirming the longstanding federal requirements that grant preferences to Native Americans and tribal members in the adoption or foster care placements of Native American children. The court rejected a challenge asserting that certain provisions of the law were racially biased against non-Native Americans.
In overturning a lower court’s decision, the ruling upheld the federal standard that prioritizes adoptive placements to “other Indian families” after considering extended family or tribal members. The lower court had deemed this preference as a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, determined that the plaintiffs, including the state of Texas and three non-Native American families, did not have the legal standing to challenge the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. She said “The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners’ challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing.” The court also dismissed other challenges to the law. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority decision.
The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted to establish federal guidelines for the removal and placement of Native American children in foster care or adoption, with the aim of preserving tribal connections.
The Indian Child Welfare Act, enacted by Congress, aimed to address the historical practice of removing Native American children from their families and placing them with non-Native Americans. Court documents indicate that at the time of the law’s passage, a significant percentage of Native American children were being removed from their homes in states with sizable Native American populations.
The law established federal guidelines for the process of removing children from their families and placing them in foster care or adoption. It included provisions that prioritize the preference for placement with extended family members, members of the child’s tribe, or “other Indian families.”
President Joe Biden, who supported the Indian Child Welfare Act and its defense in the case, expressed his satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision. He emphasized that the law is crucial for safeguarding tribal sovereignty and ensuring the well-being of Native American children.
In a statement, President Biden “The touchstone law respects tribal sovereignty and protects Native children by helping Native families stay together and, whenever possible, keeping children with their extended families or community who already know them, love them and can help them understand who they are as Native people and citizens of their Tribal Nations”.
The court’s decision received an enthusiastic response from Native American groups, who expressed their joy and satisfaction with the outcome.
A coalition of organizations, including the Indian Child Welfare Association and the National Congress of American Indians, released a statement expressing “We are overcome with joy. One thing is certain: ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act) is crucial for the safety and well-being of Native children and families and the future of Native peoples and Tribal Nations. The positive impact of (Thursday’s) decision will be felt across generations.”
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2017, was brought against the U.S. Interior Department and federal officials by the state of Texas and three families seeking to adopt or foster Native American children. One of the families involved is Jennifer and Chad Brackeen, a Texas couple who adopted a child with Navajo Nation heritage in 2018.
The plaintiffs raised various claims, including allegations that the statute’s preferences discriminate against non-Native Americans based on race, thereby violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. They also argued that the law unconstitutionally interferes with state agencies’ authority in adoption matters.
In 2018, a federal judge ruled in favor of the challengers, accepting their claims on both the racial discrimination and constitutional interference grounds. However, in 2021, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans narrowed the judge’s ruling but upheld the invalidation of certain parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the Supreme Court’s decision, stated that the court was unable to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims of racial discrimination. She explained that suing the federal government would not address the alleged racial discrimination as state courts apply the placement preferences, and state agencies carry out court-ordered placements.
Barrett also determined that Texas lacked standing as a state entity because it does not possess equal protection rights of its own, unlike individuals.
During the case’s arguments in November, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative member of the court, noted that it would not be permissible for Congress to provide preferences to white parents for adopting white children or to Latino parents for adopting Latino children.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, highlighted that the significant claims of racial discrimination made in the case remain unresolved.
He stated “Courts, including ultimately this court, will be able to address the equal protection issue when it is properly raised by a plaintiff with standing – for example, by a prospective foster or adoptive parent or child in a case arising out of a state-court foster care or adoption proceeding“.
The ruling also dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that Congress lacked the authority to pass the law in question.
