Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

18 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

III 
We  now  turn  to  petitioners’  host  of  anticommandeering
arguments,  which  we  will  break  into  three  categories. 
First, petitioners challenge certain requirements that apply
in involuntary proceedings to place a child in foster care or 
terminate parental rights: the requirements that an initi-
ating party demonstrate “active efforts” to keep the Indian
family together; serve notice of the proceeding on the parent 
or  Indian  custodian  and  tribe;  and  demonstrate,  by  a 
heightened burden of proof and expert testimony, that the
child is likely to suffer “serious emotional or physical dam-
age” if the parent or Indian custodian retains custody.  Sec-
ond,  petitioners  challenge  ICWA’s  placement  preferences. 
They claim that Congress can neither force state agencies 
to find preferred placements for Indian children nor require
state courts to apply federal standards when making cus-
tody determinations.  Third, they insist that Congress can-
not force state courts to maintain or transmit to the Federal 
Government  records  of  custody  proceedings  involving  In-
dian children.5 

A 
As  a  reminder,  “involuntary  proceedings”  are  those  to 
which  a  parent  does  not  consent.    §1912;  25  CFR  §23.2. 
Heightened protections for parents and tribes apply in this
context, and while petitioners challenge most of them, the
“active efforts” provision is their primary target.  That pro-
vision  requires  “[a]ny  party”  seeking  to  effect  an  involun-
tary foster care placement or termination of parental rights
to “satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to 
provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs de-
signed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that 
—————— 

5 All petitioners argue that these  provisions violate the anticomman-
deering  principle.    Since  Texas  has  standing  to  raise  these  claims,  we 
need not address whether the individual petitioners also have standing 
to do so.