Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 53

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

11 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

The touchstone of the statute is notice.  In any involun-
tary removal proceeding involving an Indian child, the ini-
tiating party must inform (1) the parent or custodian; and 
(2) the child’s Tribe.  §1912(a).  Either or both can intervene. 
§1911(c).  ICWA also makes it harder for the moving party 
to win an involuntary removal proceeding.  The party must 
show that “active efforts” have been made to avoid remov-
ing the Indian child.  §1912(d).  It must show the status quo
is “likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage
to the child.”  §1912(e), (f ).  And it must prove that fact by
“clear and convincing evidence,” §1912(e) (for placement in
foster  services),  or  “beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,”  §1912(f ) 
(for termination of parental rights).

Even  when  it  comes  to  voluntary  removal  proceedings,
ICWA  sets  certain  “minimum  Federal  standards”  for  “the 
placement of [Indian] children in foster or adoptive homes.” 
§1902.  In any adoptive placement, a court by default must 
give preference to “(1) a member of the child’s extended fam-
ily;  (2)  other  members  of  the  Indian  child’s  [T]ribe;  or  (3) 
other Indian families.”  §1915(a).  This priority governs un-
less  the  initiating  party  can  show  “good  cause.”    Ibid.  A 
similar  regime  applies  by  default  to  foster-care  or  pre- 
adoptive placements.  §1915(b).  But note that “by default.” 
ICWA  gives  Tribes  a  voice.    It  allows  them  to  establish  a 
“different order of preference by resolution,” provided it is
“the  least  restrictive  setting  appropriate  to  the  particular
needs of the child.”  §1915(c).

Recognizing  that  coercion  remains  possible  even  with 
these protections, ICWA also allows for postplacement re-
lief.  It lets the Indian child, the parent, or the Tribe “peti-
tion any court of competent jurisdiction” to “invalidate” an
order that violated key provisions of ICWA.  §1914.  Of spe-
cial relevance, an Indian parent consenting to adoption has
two years to withdraw consent on “the grounds that consent 
was obtained through fraud or duress.”  §1913(d). 

ICWA is not a panacea.  While “[a]dopting ICWA marked