Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

these efforts have proved unsuccessful.”  §1912(d).  Accord-
ing  to  petitioners,  this  subsection  directs  state  and  local 
agencies to provide extensive services to the parents of In-
dian children.  It is well established that the Tenth Amend-
ment bars Congress from “command[ing] the States’ offic-
ers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or
enforce  a  federal  regulatory  program.”    Printz  v.  United 
States, 521 U. S. 898, 935 (1997).  The “active efforts” pro-
vision, petitioners say, does just that. 

Petitioners’  argument  has  a  fundamental  flaw:  To  suc-
ceed, they must show that §1912(d) harnesses a State’s leg-
islative or executive authority.  But the provision applies to 
“any party” who initiates an involuntary proceeding, thus 
sweeping in private individuals and agencies as well as gov-
ernment entities.  A demand that either public or private
actors can satisfy is unlikely to require the use of sovereign 
power.  Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 19–20). 

Notwithstanding the term “any party,” petitioners insist 
that §1912(d) is “best read” as a command to the States.  See 
id., at ___ (slip op., at 21) (whether a federal  law directly
regulates the States depends on how it is “best read”).  They
contend that, as a practical matter, States—not private par-
ties—initiate the vast majority of involuntary proceedings.
Despite  the  breadth  of  the  language,  the  argument  goes, 
States are obviously the “parties” to whom the statute re-
fers. 

The record contains no evidence supporting the assertion 
that States institute the vast majority of involuntary pro-
ceedings.  Examples of private suits are not hard to find, so
we are skeptical that their number is negligible.  See, e.g., 
Adoptive  Couple  v.  Baby  Girl,  570  U. S.  637,  644–646 
(2013)  (prospective  adoptive  parents);  In re  Guardianship 
of Eliza W., 304 Neb. 995, 997, 938 N. W. 2d 307, 310 (2020) 
(grandmother); In re Guardianship of J. C. D., 2004  S. D. 
96, ¶4, 686 N. W. 2d 647, 648 (2004) (grandparents); In re