Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

fostering or adopting Indian children.  And they challenged 
§1915(c)—the provision that allows tribes to alter the pri-
oritization  order—on  the  ground  that  it  violates  the  non-
delegation doctrine.1 

The  District  Court  granted  petitioners’  motion  for  sum-
mary judgment on their constitutional claims, and a divided 
panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed.  Brackeen v. Bernhardt, 
937 F. 3d 406 (2019).  After rehearing the case en banc, the 
Fifth  Circuit  affirmed  in  part  and  reversed  in  part.    994 
F. 3d 249 (2021) (per curiam).  The en banc court concluded 
that  ICWA  does  not  exceed  Congress’s  legislative  power, 
that  §1915(c)  does  not  violate  the  nondelegation  doctrine,
and that some of ICWA’s placement preferences satisfy the
guarantee of equal protection.  Id., at 267–269.  The court 
was  evenly  divided  as  to  whether  ICWA’s  other  prefer-
ences—those  prioritizing  “other  Indian  families”  and  “In-
dian foster home[s]” over non-Indian families—unconstitu-
tionally discriminate on the basis of race.  Id., at 268.  The 
Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court’s ruling
that these preferences are unconstitutional.

Petitioners’  Tenth  Amendment  arguments  effectively
succeeded  across  the  board.  The  Fifth  Circuit  held  that 
§1912(d)’s  “active  efforts”  requirement,  §1912(e)’s  and
§1912(f )’s  expert  witness  requirements,  and  §1915(e)’s
recordkeeping  requirement  unconstitutionally  comman-
deer the States.  Ibid.  It divided evenly with respect to the 
other provisions that petitioners challenge here: §1912(a)’s 
notice  requirement,  §1915(a)  and  §1915(b)’s  placement 
preferences,  and  §1951(a)’s  recordkeeping  requirement. 
Ibid.  So the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s hold-

—————— 

1 Petitioners  raised  several  other  challenges  that  are  not  before  this 
Court,  including  that  ICWA’s  implementing  regulations  are  arbitrary
and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.