Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 125.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

the couple joined this lawsuit did the Tribe agree to a set-
tlement that would permit the couple to finalize the adop-
tion. 

After nearly two years moving between foster-care place-
ments, Child P., whose maternal grandmother is a member 
of  an  Indian  Tribe,  was  placed  with  a  non-Indian  couple 
who provided her a stable home.  After the placement, the
Tribe,  which  had  told  the  state  court  years  earlier  that
Child P. was not eligible for tribal membership, reversed its
position without explanation and enrolled her as a member. 
The Tribe then objected to the couple’s efforts to adopt Child
P., even though her court-appointed guardian believed that 
the  adoption  was  in  Child  P.’s  best  interest.  “To  comply
with the ICWA,” the state court removed Child P. from the 
couple’s custody and placed her with her maternal grand-
mother, “who had lost her foster license due to a criminal 
conviction.”  Ante, at 8 (majority opinion).

Does  the  Constitution  give  Congress  the  authority  to
bring  about  such  results?  I  would  hold  that  it  does  not. 
Whatever  authority  Congress  possesses  in  the  area  of  In-
dian affairs, it does not have the power to sacrifice the best
interests of vulnerable children to promote the interests of 
tribes in maintaining membership.  Nor does Congress have
the power to force state judges to disserve the best interests
of children or the power to delegate to tribes the authority
to force those judges to abide by the tribes’ priorities regard-
ing adoption and foster-care placement. 

I 
The  Court  makes  a  valiant  effort  to  bring  coherence  to
what has been said in past cases about Congress’s power in
this area, but its attempt falls short.  At the end of a lengthy
discussion, the majority distills only this nugget: Congress’s 
power  over  Indian  affairs  is  “plenary”  but  not  “absolute.” 
Ante, at 13–14.  The majority in today’s cases did not coin 
this formulation; it merely repeats what earlier cases have