Opinion ID: 3032694
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: background of icwa

Text: Congress passed ICWA in 1978 in response to a growing concern that Indian children were removed from their homes by state child protection officials at an alarmingly high rate and placed in foster care or adoption settings outside their Indian communities and culture. See 25 U.S.C. § 1901(4); Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 32. “At the heart of ICWA” lies a jurisdictional scheme aimed at ensuring that tribes have a role in adjudicating and participating in child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled both on and off the reservation. Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 36. This aim is reflected in § 1911(a)’s broad grant of exclusive jurisdiction to most tribes. 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a). As we have explained, the “existing Federal law” proviso in § 1911(a), providing tribes with exclusive jurisdiction “exDOE v. MANN 8437 cept where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law,” is the crux of this case. Although the text of the proviso does not specifically identify Public Law 280, the legislative history surrounding the adoption of § 1911(a) and subsequent court decisions confirm that Congress was referring, at least in part, to Public Law 280. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 32 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7554 (letter from Department of Interior); H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 40, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7563 (letter from Department of Justice); Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 42 n.16; Native Village of Venetie I, 944 F.2d at 555. An earlier draft of ICWA, House Resolution 12533, included a provision similar to § 1911(a) but did not refer to “existing” federal laws: “Sec. 101. (a) An Indian tribe shall have jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over any placement of an Indian child who resides on or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe.” Court-Appellees’ Answer Brief at App. 22. During consideration of this earlier legislation, the Departments of Justice and Interior alerted Congress that this section could strip states of jurisdiction already existing where Public Law 280 applied. The Department of the Interior stated, “We believe that reservations located in States subject to Public Law 83-280 should be specifically excluded from section 101(a) . . . .”13 The Department of Justice voiced similar concerns in two letters to Congress: As you may be aware, the courts have consistently recognized that tribal governments have exclusive jurisdiction over the domestic relationships of tribal members located on reservations, unless a State has assumed concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to Federal legislation such as Public Law 83-280 . . . . [S]ection 101(a) of the House draft, if read literally, would appear to displace any existing State court jurisdic13 Letter from Forrest J. Gerard, Assistant Secretary of Interior, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 32, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7530, 7554. 8438 DOE v. MANN tion over these matters based on Public Law 83-280. We doubt that is the intent of the draft because, inter alia, there may not be in existence tribal courts to assume such State-court jurisdiction as would apparently be obliterated by this provision.14 After these letters were received, Congress amended the legislation to include the “existing Federal law” proviso that became law.