Supreme Court to weigh law on placement for children from Indian homes

The Supreme Court announced Monday it would hear a group of cases weighing a 1978 law that gave the federal government control over removing children from Indian homes, avoiding placement with families outside of tribes.

The cases arose when three states and seven individuals challenged parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act, saying the provisions violated the states’ rights under the 10th Amendment and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. One couple, despite having their own adoption finalized, has continued to fight the constitutionality of the law for roughly five years.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit invalidated some provisions of the law, specifically a part requiring federal standards when removing a child from an Indian home and also a provision dictating that a child be placed in a relative or tribal family instead of a non-Indian family. At least four of the justices voted to review the circuit court’s decision.

A date for arguments has not yet been scheduled.

Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the Cherokee Nation; Charles Martin, chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Tehassi Hill, chairman of the Oneida Nation; and Guy Capoeman, president of the Quinault Indian Nation, said in a joint statement they were pleased with the high court’s move to review the 5th Circuit’s ruling.
 
“As leaders of our respective tribes, we know the importance of keeping our children connected with their families, communities and heritage. ICWA has proven itself as the gold standard of child welfare law, which is why both Republican and Democratic administrations, tribes and tribal organizations, and child welfare experts continue to defend it. We will never accept a return to a time when our children were forcibly removed from our communities and look forward to fighting for ICWA before the court,” they said in a statement.

“We are confident that the court will come down on the side of children, families and centuries of legal and constitutional precedent,” they added.

The cases are: Haaland, Secretary of Interior v. Brackeen, Chad; Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, Chad; Texas v. Haaland, Secretary of Interior; and Brackeen, Chad v. Haaland, Secretary of Interior.