Supreme Court Upholds Law Prioritizing Native American Child Placement
The Supreme Court has upheld a law passed in 1978 that prioritizes the placement of Native American children with Native families or tribes in child custody proceedings, rejecting challenges brought by several adoptive parents. The law was passed to protect tribal sovereignty after Congress documented the high number of children with Native American ancestry being placed with non-Native families or institutions in state child welfare and private adoption proceedings.
President Joe Biden praised Thursday’s decision, stating that it keeps in place a vital protection for tribal sovereignty and Native children. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said Congress did not exceed its authority in passing the law. Barrett was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Gorsuch wrote an opinion concurring with the majority to underline the importance of the law to the tribes, a ringing endorsement of tribal sovereignty. “Our Constitution reserves for the Tribes a place – an enduring place – in the structure of American life,” he said.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in the case but did not join each other’s opinions. Thomas took issue with the federal government’s attempt to regulate child welfare proceedings normally left to state courts. He called the majority’s justifications a “smorgasbord of constitutional hooks” and said “not one of them works.” Alito concerned himself with the actual welfare of the children seeking new homes.
The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted as a response to serious harms caused by widespread child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of Indian families, and adoption or foster placement in non-Indian homes. It was passed in part to rectify past government programs that resulted in abuse and the breakup of Indian families and applies to children living off-reservation who are involved in custody disputes in state courts.
A provision of the law requires any party seeking an Indian child’s removal from the tribe to give notice to the child’s parent (or custodian) or tribe. It establishes standards for the placement of Indian children in foster homes that require a preference be given “absence of good cause to the contrary” with a member of the child’s extended family, other members of the child’s tribe or other Indian families.
The decision is a defeat for the couples who challenged the law, upholding a lower court’s ruling that the law is consistent with Congress’ authority. A coalition of the tribes that defended the law praised the majority decision, saying that it’s “a major victory for Native tribes, children, and the future of our culture and heritage.”
Matthew D. McGill, a lawyer for the private individuals, had stressed that the law deprives Indian children – some 11,000 who were in foster care in 2020 – of an adoption that could be in the child’s best interest. He challenged the law on a variety of grounds, arguing that Congress lacked the authority to pass the law because its powers relating to Indian affairs have limitations. He said the law violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because any classification by race has to survive strict scrutiny in the courts. McGill had the support of Texas Solicitor General Judd E. Stone II, who told the justices that “Congress cannot require states to administer a nationwide child custody regime” and said that the law can…
Original Story at www.cnn.com – 2023-06-15 16:14:00
Comments are closed.