Haaland v. Brackeen Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Haaland v. Brackeen - United States Supreme Court 599 U.S. 255, 143 S. Ct. 1609 (2023) Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act or ICWA to keep Indian children from being unnecessarily removed from their families. In Haaland versus Brackeen, the supreme court considered a challenge to ICWA's constitutionality. ICWA governs the placement of Indian children into foster or adoptive homes. ICWA establishes an order of placement preferences in all adoption and foster proceedings. The statute prefers placements with a member of the child's extended family, then other members of the child's tribe, and finally, other Indian families. The child's tribe has the right to intervene at any point in a proceeding to place a child in foster care or terminate parental rights. The tribe may enforce ICWA's placement preferences even against the biological parent's wishes. ICWA's placement preferences govern even if a state court determines that a different placement is in the child's best interest. Any party who initiates involuntary proceedings to place an Indian child in foster care or terminate parental rights must establish that active efforts have been made to keep the family together. ICWA also imposes record keeping obligations on states and state courts. Child, P, entered the Minnesota child welfare system at three years old. Her maternal grandmother belonged to the Ojibwe tribe. The tribe told the court that P wasn't eligible for tribal membership. P was placed with the Cliffords, non Indians who eventually sought to adopt her. At that point, the tribe reversed its earlier position, enrolling P as a member. In compliance with ICWA, the court placed P with her grandmother. The Clifford's joined a lawsuit filed by the Brackeens and other non Indian couples who sought to foster or adopt Indian children, whom we'll call Brackeen. Brackeen sued the interior department and its secretary, Deb Haaland, and several other federal agencies and officials, whom we'll call Haaland. Among other claims, Brackeen argued that ICWA was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment's anti commandeering principle. The district court granted summary judgment for Brackeen. The Fifth Circuit affirmed regarding the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court granted cert. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding, and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/haaland... The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/haaland... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
