Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

federal statute.”  Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 
530 U. S. 363, 372 (2000).  End of story.  That a federal law 
modifies  a  state  law  cause  of  action  does  not  limit  its 
preemptive effect.  See, e.g., Hillman, 569 U. S., at 493–494 
(federal law establishing an “ ‘order of precedence’ ” for ben-
eficiaries of life insurance preempted state law); Egelhoff v. 
Egelhoff, 532 U. S. 141, 151–152 (2001) (Employee Retire-
ment  Income  Security  Act  preempted  state  law  regarding 
the economic  consequences of divorce);  Wissner v.  Wissner, 
338 U. S. 655, 660–661 (1950) (federal military benefits law 
preempted state community-property rules). 

C 
Finally,  we  turn  to  ICWA’s  recordkeeping  provisions.
Section 1951(a) requires courts to provide the Secretary of 
the Interior with a copy of the final order in the adoptive 
placement of any Indian child.  The court must also provide
“other information as may be necessary to show” the child’s
name and tribal affiliation, the names and addresses of the 
biological parents and adoptive parents, and the identity of 
any agency with information about the adoptive placement.
Section 1915(e) requires the State to “maintai[n]” a record
“evidencing the efforts to comply with the order of prefer-
ence” specified by ICWA.  The record “shall be made avail-
able at any time upon the request of the Secretary or the 
Indian child’s tribe.”  Petitioners argue that Congress can-
not  conscript  the  States  into  federal  service  by  assigning
them recordkeeping tasks.7 

—————— 

7 Though §1915(e) does not specify that the records be retained by state
courts, as opposed to state agencies, context makes clear that a “record 
of each such placement” refers to the state court’s placement determina-
tion.  See Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U. S. 30, 
40, n. 13 (1989).  True, the provision leaves it up to the State whether to
keep the records with a court or agency.  See 25 CFR §23.141(c) (“The
State court or agency should notify the BIA whether these records are
maintained within the court system or by a State agency”).  But allowing