Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 23

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

the jurisdiction of state courts in adoption proceedings in-
volving  Indian  children.  Fisher  v.  District  Court  of  Six-
teenth Judicial Dist. of Mont., 424 U. S. 382, 390 (1976) (per 
curiam).

Petitioners are trying to turn a general observation (that
Congress’s Article I powers rarely touch state family law) 
into a constitutional carveout (that family law is wholly ex-
empt  from  federal  regulation).  That  argument  is  a  non-
starter.    As  James  Madison  said  to  Members  of  the  First 
Congress, when the Constitution conferred a power on Con-
gress, “they might exercise it, although it should interfere 
with  the  laws,  or  even  the  Constitution  of  the  States.”    2 
Annals of Cong. 1897 (1791).  Family law is no exception. 

C 
Petitioners come at the problem from the opposite direc-
tion too: Even if there is no family law carveout to the In-
dian affairs power, they contend that Congress’s authority 
does  not  stretch  far  enough  to  justify  ICWA.    Ticking 
through  the  various  sources  of  power,  petitioners  assert 
that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regu-
late custody proceedings for Indian children.   Their argu-
ments fail to grapple with our precedent, and because they
bear the burden of establishing ICWA’s unconstitutionality,
we cannot sustain their challenge to the law.  See Lujan v. 
G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 532 U. S. 189, 198 (2001).

Take the Indian Commerce Clause, which is petitioners’ 
primary focus.  According to petitioners, the Clause author-
izes Congress to legislate only with respect to Indian tribes 
as  government  entities,  not  Indians  as  individuals.    Brief 
for Individual Petitioners 47–50.  But we held more than a 
century ago that “commerce with the Indian tribes, means
commerce  with  the  individuals  composing  those  tribes.” 
United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 416–417 (1866) (law 
prohibiting the sale of alcohol to Indians in Indian country); 
United States v. Nice, 241 U. S. 591, 600 (1916) (same).  So