Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

8 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

state custody around the age of three, her mother informed
the court that ICWA did not apply because Child P. was not 
eligible for tribal membership.  The Tribe wrote a letter to 
the court confirming the same.

After  two  years  in  the  foster  care  system,  Child  P.  was
placed  with  the  Cliffords,  who  eventually  sought  to  adopt 
her.  The Tribe intervened in the proceedings and, with no 
explanation  for  its  change  in  position,  informed  the  court 
that  Child  P.  was  in  fact  eligible  for  tribal  membership. 
Later, the Tribe announced that it had enrolled Child P. as 
a member.  To comply with ICWA, Minnesota placed Child 
P. with her maternal grandmother, who had lost her foster
license due to a criminal conviction.  The Cliffords contin-
ued to pursue the adoption, but, citing ICWA, the court de-
nied their motion.  Like the other families, the Cliffords in-
tend to foster or adopt Indian children in the future. 

C 

The  Brackeens,  the  Librettis,  Hernandez,  and  the 
Cliffords (whom we will refer to collectively as the “individ-
ual petitioners”) filed this suit in federal court against the 
United States, the Department of the Interior and its Sec-
retary, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and its Director,
and the Department of Health and Human Services and its
Secretary (whom we will refer to collectively as the “federal
parties”).  The  individual  petitioners  were  joined  by  the
States  of  Texas,  Indiana,  and  Louisiana—although  only 
Texas continues to challenge ICWA before this Court.  Sev-
eral Indian Tribes intervened to defend the law alongside 
the federal parties.
  Petitioners challenged ICWA as unconstitutional on mul-
tiple grounds.  They asserted that Congress lacks authority 
to enact ICWA and that several of ICWA’s requirements vi-
olate  the  anticommandeering  principle  of  the  Tenth 
Amendment.  They argued that ICWA employs racial clas-
sifications that unlawfully hinder non-Indian families from