Rule of Law

RELEASE: Justices Reject Tenth Amendment Challenges to ICWA and Confirm Supremacy of Federal Law

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision this morning in Haaland v. Brackeen and consolidated cases in which the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a 1978 law passed to prevent state courts from unnecessarily separating Indian families and communities using state adoption and foster care systems, Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh issued the following reaction:

In a victory for tribal sovereignty, the Supreme Court rejected a broad set of constitutional challenges to ICWA.  Among other things, the Court held that the law does not violate the Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering doctrine.  Consistent with the constitutional history laid out in CAC’s amicus brief in the case, the Court rejected the argument that Congress runs afoul of an anti-commandeering prohibition when it makes rules that apply in state courts, as ICWA’s rules do.  “This argument,” Justice Barrett explained, “runs headlong into the Constitution.”

The Court also rejected the challengers’ argument that ICWA’s recordkeeping provisions violate the Tenth Amendment.  Echoing CAC’s brief, the Court held that these requirements related to state court proceedings are entirely consistent with the kinds of obligations that Congress has imposed on state actors since the Founding.

Significantly, today’s decision preserves ICWA, which plays an important role in protecting tribal citizenship.  It does something else important as well: it ensures that Congress has the power to create standards that state courts must follow, consistent with the constitutional system that the Framers put in place.

##

Resources:

Case page in Haaland v. Brackeen: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/haaland-v-brackeen/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...
Rule of Law
July 10, 2026

July Newsletter: The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence Belongs to We the People

Rule of Law
July 7, 2026

CAC Release: DOJ Under Todd Blanche Fails to Disclose Epstein Files (Again)

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the Trump administration’s failure to disclose the Epstein files...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 4, 2026

Why Would President Trump Want to Celebrate the Declaration of Independence?

Common Dreams
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes wrote an op-ed for Common Dreams explaining the similarities between...
By: Praveen Fernandes