Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

34 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

“fairly traceable” to the placement preferences, which “op-
erate  independently”  of  the  provisions  Texas  identifies. 
California, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15).  The provisions
do not rise or fall together; proving that the placement pref-
erences are unconstitutional “would not show that enforce-
ment of any of these other provisions violates the Constitu-
tion.”  Ibid.  In other words, Texas would continue to incur 
the complained-of costs even if it were relieved of the duty
to apply the placement preferences.  The former, then, can-
not justify a challenge to the latter.

Because  Texas  is  not  injured  by  the  placement  prefer-
ences, neither would it be injured by a tribal resolution that 
altered  those  preferences  pursuant  to  §1915(c).    Texas 
therefore does not have standing  to bring either its equal 
protection or its nondelegation claims.12 

* 

* 

* 
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of
Appeals  regarding  Congress’s  constitutional  authority  to
enact  ICWA.  On  the  anticommandeering  claims,  we  re-
verse.  On the equal protection and nondelegation claims,
we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand 
with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

12 Although the individual petitioners join Texas’s nondelegation chal-
lenge to §1915(c), they raise no independent arguments about why they
would have standing to bring this claim.  Brief for Individual Petitioners 
41, n. 6; Brief for Federal Parties 79, n. 14.