Source: https://uclawreview.org/2018/11/17/indian-child-welfare-act-deemed-unconstitutional-by-a-texas-district-court/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:41:36+00:00

Document:
By declaring the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) and its accompanying regulations, the Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings (“Final Rule”), unconstitutional, a Texas district court throws out decades of Supreme Court precedent and threatens to undermine a core piece of legislation key to advancing tribal sovereignty. In Brackeen v. Zinke, three non-American Indian families each adopting an “Indian child,” as defined by the ICWA, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana, moved for summary judgement against the United States of America, the Department of the Interior (“Interior”), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). The Cherokee Nation Oneida Nation, Quinalt Indian Nation, and the Morengo Band of Mission Indians all filed unopposed motions to intervene, siding with the defendants. The plaintiffs claim that the ICWA and Final Rule violate the equal protection requirements of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by establishing different placement preferences in adoption proceedings based on the child’s race.
In 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) in response to “abusive child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.” The ICWA recognizes that “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions.” The ICWA defines “Indian child” as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” Among other things, the ICWA seeks to keep American Indian children with their cultures by preferring placement in “absence of good cause to the contrary” with (1) a member of the child’s extended family, (2) other members of the child’s tribe, or (3) other American Indian families in adoption proceedings for an “Indian child.” Although the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued non-binding guidelines to advise on ICWA application in 1979, states’ varied interpretations of the ICWA prompted the BIA to promulgate the Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings (“Final Rule”) in 2016 to ensure that states apply the ICWA consistently.
 Id. at *5-*6. The defendants also include Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and BIA Director Bryan Rice in their official capacities.
Id. at *33-*34. The plaintiffs also claim that the ICWA and Final Rule violate the Fifth Amendment’s substantive due process requirement, the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, and exceed the scope of the Indian Commerce Clause, under which Congress claims its authority to enact the ICWA. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the ICWA violates Article I of the Constitution. These claims are not discussed in this article. The judge granted summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs on every claim but the substantive due process claim.
 92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963.
 Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 32 (1989).
 95 P.L. 608, 92 Stat. 3069, § 2(4).
 Id. at §105(a) (emphasis added). Other key provisions of the ICWA that exceed the scope of this article include granting tribes exclusive jurisdiction over child custody for Indian children residing or domiciled in the reservation, and urging states transfer jurisdiction to tribes for foster care placement or termination of parental rights of Indian children that do not reside on the reservation. Id. at § 101.
 Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings 44 Fed. Reg. 67,584.
 Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings (“Final Rule”), 25 C.F.R. § 23.101 (2016). In the Final Rule, the BIA clarified that moving parties must establish “good cause” for deviating from the ICWA’s adoption placement preferences by “clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at § 23.123(b).
 Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 519 (2000).
 Morton v. Mancari, 477 U.S. 535, 554-555 (1974).
Next Florence Mall?, Nope?, How about Ya’ll!

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 §105
 § 101
 § 23
 § 23
 v. 
 v.