Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 133

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

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

state  judgments  regarding  the  welfare  of  resident  Indian 
children.  Lara, 541 U. S., at 205.  And third, the law “in-
terfere[s] with the power [and] authority of [every] State” 
in the conduct of state judicial proceedings and determina-
tion of child custody arrangements.  Ibid.  That is, in fact, 
its express design.  See, e.g., §§1911(c), 1912, 1915.  These 
indicators  confirm  that  ICWA  surpasses  even  a  generous 
understanding of Congress’s Indian affairs authority. 

* 

* 

* 
I  am  sympathetic  to  the  challenges  that  tribes  face  in
maintaining  membership  and  preserving  their  cultures. 
And I do not question the idea that the best interests of chil-
dren may in some circumstances take into account a desire 
to enable children to maintain a connection with the culture 
of  their  ancestors.  The  Constitution  provides  Congress
with  many  means  for  promoting  such  interests.    But  the 
Constitution does not permit Congress to displace long-ex-
ercised state authority over child custody proceedings to ad-
vance those interests at the expense of vulnerable children
and their families. 

Because I would hold that Congress lacked authority to
enact  the  challenged  ICWA  provisions,  I  respectfully  dis-
sent.