The Supreme Court Just Handed Native Families a Huge Victory

“Our Constitution…promises [tribes] sovereignty for as long as they wish to keep it.”

Mother Jones; Unsplash

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, the landmark 1978 legislation aimed at preventing Native foster children and adoptees from being separated from their families and tribes. The ruling in Haaland v. Brackeen represents a victory for Native tribes, who argued that the case threatened the basic tenets of Native sovereignty, and a blow to the plaintiffs—the state of Texas and three non-Native couples who wanted to adopt Native children—who argued to overturn the law based on racial discrimination and an overly intrusive federal government.

“This case is about children who are among the most vulnerable: those in the child welfare system,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority opinion. “The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners’ challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires states to make proactive efforts to place Native children with family members, members of the same tribe, or other Native families. In addition, the law allows tribes to intervene in foster placement and adoption decisions.

“Often, Native American Tribes have come to this Court seeking justice only to leave with bowed heads and empty hands,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in his opinion. “But that is not because this Court has no justice to offer them. Our Constitution reserves for the Tribes a place—an enduring place—in the structure of American life. It promises them sovereignty for as long as they wish to keep it.”

ICWA emerged in response to a long history of Native family separation. By the time ICWA passed, in 1978, between 25 and 35 percent of all Native children had been taken from their families and put in foster homes, adoptive homes, or institutions, according to surveys by the Association on American Indian Affairs.

The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case included the state of Texas as well as three sets of parents (including Chad and Jennifer Brackeen) who wanted to adopt Native children. Two of the three couples were ultimately successful in doing so, but all say they encountered unconstitutional barriers because of ICWA. The plaintiffs found support from a network of conservative groups, including the Cato Institute, the Goldwater Institute, and the Bradley Foundation. Gibson Dunn, the law firm representing the Brackeens pro bono, has represented several plaintiffs taking issue with laws specific to Native communities, including the corporation behind the Dakota Access pipeline. 

“ICWA deprives Indian children of an individualized assessment of their best interests based on their blood,” wrote the Brackeens’ lawyer, Matthew McGill, in an email last year. “Our position is that, no less than non-Indian children, Indian children are entitled to a placement based on their best interests, rather than on stereotypes about what is good for Indian children as a category.” 

ICWA supporters—including 497 tribes, 23 states, and 87 members of Congress—countered that the law’s focus on placing kids with their kin is the gold standard for child welfare policy reform. “All children would benefit from such a commitment,” read an amicus brief in support of the defendants, filed by dozens of child welfare and adoption organizations. Many legal experts argue that the law, like much of Native sovereignty, is based not on race, but rather on tribes’ unique political status. Some worried that a ruling against ICWA could mean “the unraveling of the legal structure that defends the rights of Indigenous nations in this country,” This Land podcast host Rebecca Nagle told me last year.

“We are overcome with joy that the Supreme Court has upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act,” wrote the National Indian Child Welfare Association in a recent statement. “The positive impact of today’s decision will be felt across generations.”

Correction: A previous version indicated Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with Gorsuch’s opinion. They signed off on part, but not all, of the opinion.

DONALD TRUMP & DEMOCRACY

Mother Jones was founded to do things differently in the aftermath of a political crisis: Watergate. We stand for justice and democracy. We reject false equivalence. We go after, and go deep on, stories others don’t. And we’re a nonprofit newsroom because we knew corporations and billionaires would never fund the journalism we do. Our reporting makes a difference in policies and people’s lives changed.

And we need your support like never before to vigorously fight back against the existential threats American democracy and journalism face. We’re running behind our online fundraising targets and urgently need all hands on deck right now. We can’t afford to come up short—we have no cushion; we leave it all on the field.

Please help with a donation today if you can—even just a few bucks helps. Not ready to donate but interested in our work? Sign up for our Daily newsletter to stay well-informed—and see what makes our people-powered, not profit-driven, journalism special.

payment methods

DONALD TRUMP & DEMOCRACY

Mother Jones was founded to do things differently in the aftermath of a political crisis: Watergate. We stand for justice and democracy. We reject false equivalence. We go after, and go deep on, stories others don’t. And we’re a nonprofit newsroom because we knew corporations and billionaires would never fund the journalism we do. Our reporting makes a difference in policies and people’s lives changed.

And we need your support like never before to vigorously fight back against the existential threats American democracy and journalism face. We’re running behind our online fundraising targets and urgently need all hands on deck right now. We can’t afford to come up short—we have no cushion; we leave it all on the field.

Please help with a donation today if you can—even just a few bucks helps. Not ready to donate but interested in our work? Sign up for our Daily newsletter to stay well-informed—and see what makes our people-powered, not profit-driven, journalism special.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate