Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

HAALAND, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. v. 
BRACKEEN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–376.  Argued November 9, 2022—Decided June 15, 2023* 

This case arises from three separate child custody proceedings governed
by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal statute that aims to
keep  Indian  children  connected  to  Indian  families.    ICWA  governs
state court adoption and foster care proceedings involving Indian chil-
dren.    Among  other  things,  the  Act  requires  placement  of  an  Indian 
child according to the Act’s hierarchical preferences, unless the state 
court finds “good cause” to depart from them.  25 U. S. C. §§1915(a), 
(b).  Under those preferences, Indian families or institutions from any 
tribe (not just the tribe to which the child has a tie) outrank unrelated
non-Indians or non-Indian institutions.  Further, the child’s tribe may
pass a resolution altering the prioritization order.  §1915(c).  The pref-
erences of the Indian child or her parent generally cannot trump those 
set by statute or tribal resolution.

In involuntary proceedings, the Act mandates that the Indian child’s
parent or custodian and tribe be given notice of any custody proceed-
ings,  as  well  as  the  right  to  intervene.  §§1912(a),  (b),  (c).    Section 
1912(d) requires a party seeking to terminate parental rights or to re-
move an Indian child from an unsafe environment to “satisfy the court 
that  active  efforts  have  been  made  to  provide  remedial  services  and 
rehabilitative  programs  designed  to  prevent  breakup  of  the  Indian 
family,” and a court cannot order relief unless the party demonstrates,
by a heightened burden of proof and expert testimony, that the child is 

—————— 

* Together with No. 21–377, Cherokee Nation et al. v. Brackeen et al., 
No. 21–378, Texas v. Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al., and No. 
21–380, Brackeen et al. v. Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al., also 
on certiorari to the same court.