Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 131.0

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

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

the  cases  before  us  attest,  this  historic  tradition  of  state 
oversight of child custody and welfare through state judicial
proceedings continues to the present day. 

The ICWA provisions challenged here do not simply run
up against this traditional state authority, they run rough-
shod over it when the State seeks to protect one of its young 
citizens who also happens to be a member of an Indian tribe 
or who is the biological child of a member and eligible for 
tribal membership, herself.  25 U. S. C. §1903(4).  In those 
circumstances, ICWA requires a State to abandon the care-
fully-considered  judicial  procedures  and  standards  it  has
established to provide for a child’s welfare and instead ap-
ply a scheme devised by Congress that focuses not solely on 
the best interest of the child, but also on “the stability and
security  of  Indian  tribes.”  §1902.   That  scheme  requires
States to invite tribal authorities with no existing relation-
ship to a child to intervene in judicial custody proceedings,
§§1911(c), 1912(a), 1914.  It requires States to replace their
reasoned standards for termination of parental rights and 
placement in foster care with standards that favor the in-
terests  of  an  Indian  custodian  over  those  of  the  child. 
§§1912(e), (f ).  It forces state courts to give Indian couples 
(even those of different tribes) priority in adoption and fos-
ter-care  placements,  even  over  a  non-Indian  couple  who
would  better  serve  a  child’s  emotional  and  other  needs. 
§§1915(a), (b).  And it requires state judges to subordinate 
the  State’s  typical  custodial  considerations  to  a  tribe’s  al-
ternative preference.  §1915(c).

It  is  worth  underscoring  that  ICWA’s  directives  apply
even  when  the  child  is  not  a  member  of  a  tribe  and  has 
never been involved in tribal life, and even when a child’s 
biological parents object.  As seen in the cases before us, the 
sad  consequence  is  that  ICWA’s  provisions  may  delay  or 
prevent a child’s adoption by a family ready to provide her 
a permanent home.

ICWA’s mandates do not simply touch on family matters.