Plain-English summary
Court narrows some federal protections in the Indian Child Welfare Act but leaves key parts intact
In Texas v. Haaland (2023), the Supreme Court partly upheld and partly struck down provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Court affirmed some federal authority to protect Native children but found certain ICWA classification and placement rules unconstitutional as applied to the States and private parties.
Why this matters
ICWA is the primary federal law governing child custody and adoption involving Native American children. The Court’s decision changes how certain ICWA rules apply in state court proceedings and affects who may enforce or be subject to those rules. The ruling will influence adoption and foster-care cases involving Native children and state-federal relations over Indian affairs.
Who may feel it
- Native American children and families
- Tribes and tribal governments
- State child-welfare agencies and courts
- Prospective adoptive and foster parents
- Private parties involved in child-custody and adoption proceedings
Key questions
- Does Congress have power under the Indian Commerce Clause to regulate state child-custody proceedings when a child is or may be an Indian?
- Do ICWA’s classifications of “Indian” and related placement preferences violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee?