- Details
- By Jenna Kunze
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that Congress has the authority to enact the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), while striking down a portion of the law that gives preference to Indigenous families in the adoption of Native American children.
The lawsuit—Brackeen v. Haaland, formerly Brackeen v. Bernhardt— was brought by Texas, Indiana, Louisiana, and individual plaintiffs, alleging that ICWA is unconstitutional for discriminating against non-Native families in the placement of Native children.
Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 in response to Native children being removed from their homes and placed with non-Native families. Research by the Native Indian Child Welfare Association found that between 25 percent and 35 percent of all Native children were forcibly removed from their home by state child welfare and private adoption agencies. Of them, 85 percent were placed with non-Native families, even when fit and willing relatives were available. ICWA is a safeguard aimed at preventing such a crisis from occurring by enabling tribes and families to be involved in child welfare cases.
A 325-page opinion document penned by Judge James Dennis and Judge Stuart Duncan included a summary of majority agreements among the 16-judge court, and several instances of a lack of consensus, which defaults to former precedent.
“The main takeaways are: basically the court did decide that at least one plaintiff has standing to bring this claim,” said Mary Kathryn Nagle, a Cherokee Nation citizen and partner with the law firm Pipestem and Nagle, which specializes in federal Indian law. “The court basically denied, or didn't reach full agreement, on most of the constitutional challenges. So, as a result of this ongoing opinion, the majority of ICWA remains constitutional.”
Where it gets messy, Nagle said, is that the majority of judges ruled that certain provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act violate the anti-commandeering doctrine, which says that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law.
In one example, a majority of judges found that ICWA’s “active efforts” clause—which requires prospective foster parents of a Native child prove that active efforts have been made to remediate or rehabilitate the biological parent and prevent the breakup of the Native American family—“unconstitutionally commandeer state actors,” given its need for expert witnesses and recordkeeping.
The Protect ICWA Campaign, a coalition comprised of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA), National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Association on American Affairs (AAIA), and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), issued a statement on Tuesday expressing both pleasure and concern with the case’s decision.
“While the Protect ICWA Campaign is pleased to see that the court recognized that ICWA generally is within Congress’s authority, we are deeply concerned that aspects of this opinion misunderstand the unique relationship between the United States and tribal nations,” the group wrote in a statement.
In 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled that ICWA violates the U.S. Constitution. Last year, in response to appeals brought by the federal government and tribal nations, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit reversed that decision, reaffirming the constitutionality of ICWA. On Tuesday, the case was heard en banc review, or by an entire court.
Moving forward, Nagle said she anticipates plaintiffs will appeal Tuesday’s decision, sending the case to the Supreme Court to make a judgement on ICWA’s constitutionality.
The “real battlefield”—in Nagle’s opinion— will be on whether or not it’s constitutional for ICWA to give preference in placement of Native children with Native families or communities, as is currently allowed by law.
“Obviously, (ICWA) was not about keeping children in homes that aren't safe or where they're abused, that's not at all what happens here,” Nagle said. “But I think it's true for all children, if they can stay with a loving family member, that's way better than going to a stranger. But the problem is here, we have strangers who want Indian children and they're making an argument that they're entitled to have Indian babies, and that it violates their constitutional rights if they can't be a preferred placement for an Indian child. And that's pretty ludicrous.”
As far as impact from the current ruling, the 5th Circuit's ruling on provisions giving preference to Native American families will go into effect June 1, and will only affect court proceedings thereafter in the three states within the 5th Circuit: Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
More Stories Like This
50 Years of Self-Determination: How a Landmark Act Empowered Tribal Sovereignty and Transformed Federal-Tribal RelationsJune 21st is World Peace and Prayer Day 2025
MacArthur Foundation Launches Native Self-Determination Program, Pledges Expanded Support
In Runoff Triumph, David Sickey Elected Chairman of Coushatta Tribe
San Carlos Tribe Celebrates Temporary Victory in Federal Court to Save Oak Flat
Help us tell the stories that could save Native languages and food traditions
At a critical moment for Indian Country, Native News Online is embarking on our most ambitious reporting project yet: "Cultivating Culture," a three-year investigation into two forces shaping Native community survival—food sovereignty and language revitalization.
The devastating impact of COVID-19 accelerated the loss of Native elders and with them, irreplaceable cultural knowledge. Yet across tribal communities, innovative leaders are fighting back, reclaiming traditional food systems and breathing new life into Native languages. These aren't just cultural preservation efforts—they're powerful pathways to community health, healing, and resilience.
Our dedicated reporting team will spend three years documenting these stories through on-the-ground reporting in 18 tribal communities, producing over 200 in-depth stories, 18 podcast episodes, and multimedia content that amplifies Indigenous voices. We'll show policymakers, funders, and allies how cultural restoration directly impacts physical and mental wellness while celebrating successful models of sovereignty and self-determination.
This isn't corporate media parachuting into Indian Country for a quick story. This is sustained, relationship-based journalism by Native reporters who understand these communities. It's "Warrior Journalism"—fearless reporting that serves the 5.5 million readers who depend on us for news that mainstream media often ignores.
We need your help right now. While we've secured partial funding, we're still $450,000 short of our three-year budget. Our immediate goal is $25,000 this month to keep this critical work moving forward—funding reporter salaries, travel to remote communities, photography, and the deep reporting these stories deserve.
Every dollar directly supports Indigenous journalists telling Indigenous stories. Whether it's $5 or $50, your contribution ensures these vital narratives of resilience, innovation, and hope don't disappear into silence.
The stakes couldn't be higher. Native languages are being lost at an alarming rate. Food insecurity plagues many tribal communities. But solutions are emerging, and these stories need to be told.
Support independent Native journalism. Fund the stories that matter.
Levi Rickert (Potawatomi), Editor & Publisher
