Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 29

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

Carolina v. Baker, for example, we held that a generally ap-
plicable  law  regulating  unregistered  bonds  did  not  com-
mandeer the States; rather, it required States “wishing to
engage  in  certain  activity  [to]  take  administrative  and
sometimes legislative action to comply with federal stand-
ards  regulating  that  activity.”    485  U. S.  505,  514–515 
(1988).  We reached a similar conclusion in Reno v. Condon, 
which dealt with a statute prohibiting state motor vehicle
departments (DMVs) from selling a driver’s personal infor-
mation  without  the  driver’s  consent.  528  U. S.  141,  143– 
144 (2000).  The law regulated not only the state DMVs, but 
also private parties who had already purchased this infor-
mation and sought to resell it.  Id., at 146.  Applying Baker, 
we  concluded  that  the  Act  did  not  “require  the  States  in
their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens,” “en-
act any laws or regulations,” or “assist in the enforcement
of  federal  statutes  regulating  private  individuals.”  528 
U. S., at 150–151.  Instead, it permissibly “regulate[d] the
States as the owners of data bases.”  Id., at 151.
  Petitioners argue that Baker and Condon are distinguish-
able because they addressed laws regulating a State’s com-
mercial activity, while ICWA regulates a State’s “core sov-
ereign  function  of  protecting  the  health  and  safety  of
children within its borders.”  Brief for Petitioner Texas 66. 
A State can stop selling bonds or a driver’s personal infor-
mation,  petitioners  say,  but  it  cannot  withdraw  from  the 
area of child welfare—protecting children is the business of
government,  even  if  it  is  work  in  which  private  parties 
share.  Nor, of course, could Texas avoid ICWA by excluding 
only Indian children from social services.  Because States 
cannot exit the field, they are hostage to ICWA, which re-
quires  them  to  implement  Congress’s  regulatory  program 
for the care of Indian children and families.  Id., at 64–65; 
Reply Brief for Texas 27. 

This  argument  is  presumably  directed  at  situations  in