Global Courant
The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law designed to keep Native American children connected to Native American families in custody and adoption proceedings.
A 7 to 2 majority of the judges rejected challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act from several states and white families seeking to permanently adopt Indigenous children. They argued that they are discriminated against and disadvantaged, in violation of the constitution’s guarantees of equal protection.
“They claim it overrides federal authority, violates state sovereignty and discriminates on the basis of race,” wrote Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the court’s ruling for Haaland v. Brackeen. “The United States, joined by several Indian tribes, is defending the law. The issues are complex… But the bottom line is that we reject all the contentions of the petitioners of the statute, some on the merits and others for want of prestige.”
The dispute is a clash of tribal sovereignty, states’ rights and claims of racial discrimination.
SUPREME COURT BELIEVES CASE OF TEXAS COUPLE FIGHT TO KEEP ADOPTED NATIVE AMERICAN CHILD
The question is whether the Supreme Court should strike down or seriously dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which was designed to protect the rights of Indians in state custody proceedings. It has long been championed by tribal leaders as a means of preserving their families and culture.
The case dealt with aspects of a unique relationship between indigenous tribes and the federal government, and the ability of state courts to broadly determine the discretionary “best interests” of children during placement hearings.
Among those challenging the law were Jennifer and Chad Brackeen of Fort Worth, Texas, who first raised and then adopted a son, known in court documents as ALM, in 2016 after his mother, a member of the Navajo Nation, failed to was able to take care of him. The tribe tried to place the boy with other out-of-state tribesmen who were not related to him.
TEXAS FAMILY FIGHTS IN SUPREME COURT TO HOLD ADOPTED NATIVE AMERICAN CHILD BECAUSE OF LAW THAT BENEFITS TRIBES
Thursday’s opinion was written by Judge Amy Coney Barrett. (AP)
The Brackeens eventually won custody of ALM, but now want to adopt the child’s half-sister, identified in state filings as YRJ
“It’s been three and a half years in court and we haven’t been able to finalize the adoption,” Chad Brackeen told Fox News Digital. “At the end of the day, these two siblings belong together.”
But the more than three-quarters of the 574 federally recognized U.S. tribes told the Supreme Court in several amicus briefs that the law has been on the books and working for 44 years.
The Supreme Court ruled against states challenging India’s child welfare law. (Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
“The Supreme Court precedent is that Native American tribes are political groups of people, not racial groups of people,” said Cherokee Nation deputy attorney general Chrissi Ross Nimmo. “Tribes determine citizenship… just like countries.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Many tribes warn of a wider loss of political sovereignty if the ICWA is brought down or weakened, over issues such as health care, education and housing, all of which are governed by specific federal laws.
Texas, along with Indiana and Louisiana, have also challenged the federal law, saying it exceeds the authority over state custody matters.
Shannon Bream currently serves as anchor of FOX News Sunday. She joined the network in 2007 as a Washington DC correspondent for the Supreme Court. Her latest book is “The Love Stories of the Bible Speak.”
