Overview:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act, leaving in place Minnesota court rulings supporting placement of two Red Lake Nation children with their maternal grandmother.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, leaving in place Minnesota court decisions involving two enrolled members of the Red Lake Nation.
The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in N.R. v. Ellison, a case in which petitioners argued that both the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The court’s decision is the latest in a series of legal challenges aimed at ICWA, a federal law designed to protect the well-being of Indian children and families while maintaining family integrity, cultural connections and Tribal involvement in child welfare proceedings.
ICWA also recognizes the inherent authority of Tribal Nations to participate in child welfare matters involving their citizens.
“The Supreme Court correctly denied cert in this case, rejecting another attack on the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),” said Leonard Powell, a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund (NARF). “Just three years ago, we successfully defeated a similar equal protection attack on ICWA and Tribal sovereignty in Haaland v. Brackeen. ICWA remains a vital protection for Tribal families and Tribal sovereignty.”
The case arose from state child-protection proceedings involving twin children who are enrolled members of the Red Lake Nation in Minnesota.
Former non-relative foster parents sought to intervene in the proceedings in an effort to prevent the children from being placed with family. They challenged the constitutionality of both ICWA and MIFPA, arguing that the laws violated equal protection.
The children’s mother, the State of Minnesota, Faribault-Martin County Human Services, the guardian ad litem and the Red Lake Nation all supported placing the children with their maternal grandmother rather than the former foster parents.
The juvenile court denied the former foster parents’ request to intervene, and the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that decision.
By declining to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court left those Minnesota court decisions in place.
“The petitioners tried to turn a state-court dispute over who could join a child-protection case into a vehicle for overturning ICWA and Minnesota’s own protections for Native families,” said m boulette of boulette PLLC. “Those protections are too important to be put at risk that way, and the Supreme Court was right to decline the invitation.”
ICWA was enacted nearly five decades ago in response to the widespread removal of Indian children from their families and Tribal communities. The law established federal standards governing the removal and placement of Indian children in state child welfare proceedings and sought to preserve children’s connections to their families, Tribes, communities and cultures.
Child welfare experts have recognized ICWA as an important model for protecting family and cultural connections in child welfare.
The law has nevertheless faced repeated constitutional challenges from opponents who argue that its protections improperly rely on a child’s Tribal citizenship or ancestry.
In 2023, the Supreme Court rejected a major constitutional challenge to ICWA in Haaland v. Brackeen, upholding the law and rejecting arguments that its provisions violated equal protection, the Constitution’s anti-commandeering principle or Congress’ authority over Indian affairs.
NARF represented the children’s mother before the U.S. Supreme Court in N.R. v. Ellison, alongside Frundt, Lundquist & Gustafson.
