Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 124

2 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

their parents, as well as our Constitution’s division of fed-
eral and state authority.

Decisions about child custody, foster care, and adoption
are core state functions.  The paramount concern in these
cases has long been the “best interests” of the children in-
volved.  See,  e.g.,  3  T.  Zeller,  Family  Law  and  Practice 
§§32.06, 32.08 (2022); 6 id., §64.06.  But in many cases, pro-
visions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compel ac-
tions that conflict with this fundamental state policy, sub-
ordinating  what  family-court  judges—and  often  biological
parents—determine to be in the best interest of a child to 
what Congress believed is in the best interest of a tribe. 

The  cases  involved  in  this  litigation  illustrate  the  dis-
tressing  consequences.    To  its  credit,  the  Court  acknowl-
edges what happened to these children, but its decision does 
nothing  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  similar  events.    Take 
A. L. M.  His adoption by a loving non-Indian couple, with
whom  he  had  lived  for  over  a  year  and  had  developed  a 
strong emotional bond, was initially blocked even though it 
was supported by both of his biological parents, his grand-
mother,  and  the  testimony  of  both  his  court-appointed 
guardian and a psychological expert.  Because a Tribe ob-
jected, he would have been sent to an Indian couple that he
did  not  know  in  another  State  had  the  non-Indian  couple
not sought and obtained an emergency judicial order.

Baby O.’s story is similar.  A non-Indian couple welcomed
Baby O. into their home when she was three days old and 
cared for her for more than two years while seeking to adopt 
her.  The  couple  ensured  that  Baby  O.’s  serious  medical 
needs  were  met  and  maintained  regular  visits  with  Baby
O.’s biological mother so that Baby O. could have a contin-
uing relationship with her biological family.  Even though
both  biological  parents  supported  the  couple’s  adoption  of
Baby O., a Tribe objected and sought to send Baby O. to live 
in foster care on a reservation in another State.  Only after