Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Haaland v. Brackeen

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawIndian AffairsFederalismStandingTenth AmendmentArticle IICWAIndian Child Welfare Act

Facts

ICWA governs state child-custody proceedings involving Indian children and imposes notice, active-efforts, evidentiary, placement-preference, and recordkeeping requirements. The case arose out of three separate custody proceedings involving the Brackeens, the Librettis and Hernandez, and the Cliffords, each of whom encountered ICWA's requirements in adoption or foster-care disputes. The individual petitioners, joined by Texas, argued that ICWA exceeded Congress's authority, commandeered the States, used unlawful classifications in placement preferences, and improperly delegated power to tribes. Federal officials and several tribes defended the statute.

Issue

Whether ICWA exceeds Congress's Article I authority, violates the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering principle, or can be challenged here on equal protection and nondelegation grounds by parties with Article III standing. Also, whether Congress may require state courts to apply ICWA's placement rules and maintain related records.

Rule

Congress has broad authority to legislate with respect to Indians under established precedent, and there is no family-law carveout that bars otherwise valid federal legislation from preempting state domestic-relations law. A federal statute that applies evenhandedly to private and state actors does not ordinarily commandeer the States, and Congress may require state courts to apply valid federal law and comply with ancillary recordkeeping obligations related to adjudication. Article III standing requires an injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by relief against the defendants before the court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Tribal Family Safeguards Act, which governs certain custody proceedings involving children eligible for membership in federally recognized tribes. In involuntary cases, the statute requires "any party" seeking foster placement to show the court that it made active efforts to prevent family breakup. A county child-services office in Ohio challenges the law as commandeering the States.

How should a court most likely rule on the county office's anticommandeering challenge?

Explanation. The challenge should fail. The majority reasoned that when a federal statute applies on its face to "any party," including private as well as state actors, a challenger must show it actually harnesses state sovereign authority. A generally applicable rule of this kind is unlikely to violate the anticommandeering doctrine merely because States often participate in the regulated proceedings. The Court also rejected the idea that family-law subject matter itself creates a Tenth Amendment carveout. (Derived from Haaland v. Brackeen (n.d.).)