In the 7-2 Decision of Haaland V. Brackeen, the SCOTUS Upholds the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
We applaud the concurring opinion of Justices Barrett, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson in the recent Supreme Court decision of HAALAND v. BRACKEEN. Their collective wisdom and insight added depth to the Court’s decision, providing a nuanced understanding of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court. She emphasized the importance of the ICWA in protecting the interests of Native American children and tribes. She argued that the ICWA is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection clause. She also pointed out that the law is based on the political status of Native American tribes – Citizenship to a Tribal Nation – and not on racial classification.
Justice Gorsuch joined the majority opinion. In his concurring opinion, he further emphasized the importance of respecting the long-standing history of sovereignty of our Tribal Nations and their respective citizens. He argued that the ICWA is crucial in preserving tribal sovereignty and culture.
“In adopting the Indian Child Welfare Act, Congress exercised that lawful authority to secure the right of Indian parents to raise their families as they please; the right of Indian children to grow in their culture; and the right of Indian communities to resist fading into the twilight of history.“
Justice Gorsuch, pg 80/133
Although providing a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh shared the legal intricacies involved in the case and stated that the equal protection issue remains undecided and is serious. Under the Act he says, a child in foster care or adoption proceedings may in some cases be denied a particular placement because of the child’s race—even if the placement is otherwise determined to be in the child’s best interests. This issue, when it is properly raised by a plaintiff, could be or should be, decided in the future.
________
Join Our Membership - Free!
________The collective concurring opinion of these Justices, including Kavanaugh, enriched the Court’s decision, shedding light on the complexities of the case and the laws involved. Their commitment to upholding the principles of justice while navigating the intricacies of the ICWA and state laws is commendable. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito filed dissenting opinions.
The decision reaffirms the constitutionality of the ICWA and the federal government’s authority to enact laws that protect the rights and interests of Native American tribes and our members.
