In addition, the petitioner’s final argument relating to Congress' Indian Commerce authority, Justice Barrett held that "Petitioners are trying to turn a general observation (that Congress's powers rarely touch state family law) into a constitutional carveout. That argument is a non- starter. As James Madison said to Members of the First Congress, when the Constitution conferred a power on Congress, 'they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws or even the Constitution of the States.' Family law is no exception." The Court also dismissed petitioners claim that several provisions of ICWA violate the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, which bars Congress from "commanding the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." The majority rejected all three categories of petitioners' Tenth Amendment arguments. The Court held that "When a federal statute applies on its face to both private and state actors, a commandeering argument is a heavy lift—and petitioners have not pulled it off. Both state and private actors initiate involuntary proceedings. And, if there is a core of involuntary proceedings committed exclusively to the sovereign, Texas neither identifies its contours nor explains what §1912(d) [of ICWA] requires of a State in that context. Petitioners have therefore failed to show that [this provision of ICWA] commands the States to deploy their executive or legislative power to implement federal Indian policy." Finally, the Court looked at claims of equal protection violations that renders ICWA unconstitutional under the 14 th Amendment. The Court did not go into a detailed analysis of these 14 th amendment claims because they found the petitioners failed to show standing. As a threshold question, Plaintiffs must show that they have suffered an injury that is "fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." The Court held that neither the individual petitioners nor the State of Texas could pass the standing test and cannot challenge ICWA’s constitutionality. Today's Court decision is a truly remarkable victory for Indian Country and the protection of Native families. As Justice Gorsuch noted in his concurring opinion, "In affirming the constitutionality of ICWA, the Court safeguards the ability of tribal members to raise their children free from interference by state authorities and other outside parties. In the process, the Court also goes a long way toward restoring the original balance between federal, state, and tribal powers the Constitution envisioned." The Indian Gaming Association will continue to monitor Federal Court activity impacting Indian Country, along with our sister organizations NCAI and NARF. Federal Court activity will remain a linchpin for the recently activated IGA-NCAI Taskforce while we urge Congress to continue to pass and enforce legislation such as ICWA which has become so central to preserving our culture and way of life.
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs