最高法院周四驳回了对1978年《印度儿童福利法》的一项重大挑战，支持了一项具有里程碑意义的法律，该法律长期以来因给予而受到部落的欢迎美国土著家庭在收养土著儿童时享有优先权。
德克萨斯州和一群非本地的养父母质疑这种优惠政策，认为这侵犯了州政府在儿童福利政策上的权威，是基于种族的非法歧视。
艾米·科尼·巴雷特法官，为7-2的大多数人写作决定，驳回了诉讼请求。
巴雷特写道:“国会对印第安人的立法权已经确立，而且非常广泛。”。“当国会根据第一条的权力制定一项有效的法令时，州法律自然被优先考虑……故事结束。”
巴雷特说，法院并没有决定，然而，该法律是否违反了第14修正案的平等保护条款，不利于非本土家庭，因为该案件中的任何一方都没有受到该法律部分的直接伤害。
巴雷特写道:“我们没有得出这些主张的法律依据，因为法庭上没有一方有资格提出这些主张。”
这一结论为将来可能对该法律提出歧视性的挑战敞开了大门。“平等保护问题很严重，”大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺(Brett Kavanaugh)在一份赞同巴雷特总体判断的意见中写道，但也引起了关注。
“寄养或收养程序中的孩子在某些情况下可能会因为孩子的种族而被拒绝特定的安置，”他写道，“即使这种安置被确定为符合孩子的最大利益。”
克拉伦斯·托马斯法官和萨缪尔·阿利托法官对此持不同意见。两人都认为国会没有权力取代州政府来管理儿童安置的决定。
托马斯写道:“联邦政府因此缺乏监管州家庭法的一般警察权力。”。
这部名为《ICWA》的法律是在两党压倒性支持下通过的，以回应20世纪60年代数代政府支持的数十万土著儿童与家人分离的行为。
土著部落长期以来一直称之为收养的“黄金标准”，要求州法院首先优先考虑土著儿童的直系亲属，然后是该儿童部落的另一名成员，然后是无血缘关系的部落成员，然后才考虑非土著父母。
部落领导人表示，这部法律对于保持他们的文化和保护他们作为独立国家的主权至关重要。
“今天的决定是土著部落、儿童以及我们文化和遗产的未来的一个重大胜利，”切罗基族首席酋长小查克·霍斯金、莫隆戈使命印第安人协会主席查尔斯·马丁、奥奈达族主席特哈斯·希尔和基诺印第安人协会主席盖伊·卡波曼在一份关于裁决的声明中说。
“这也是对法治的广泛肯定，以及围绕国会和部落民族之间关系的基本宪法原则，”这些领导人说。
乍得和詹妮弗·布莱肯的代表告诉ABC新闻，这对德克萨斯父母起诉了ICWA，并试图收养一名他们一直在抚养的美国土著女孩，这对夫妇被法院的判决“击垮了”。
布雷肯女士是一名麻醉师，她的丈夫是一名土木工程师，后来成为全职爸爸，他们养育了两个亲生孩子和两个美国土著兄弟姐妹——一个7岁的男孩和一个4岁的女孩——他们已经养育了他们多年。
虽然他们已经成功收养了他们7岁的儿子，但他妹妹的命运还没有决定。
布莱肯夫妇说，这两次收养都受到了ICWA的阻碍。
他们认为，通过给予美国印第安家庭优先于白人家庭的收养权，这项法律是基于种族的歧视。
詹妮弗·布莱肯在去年的一次采访中说:“文化因素对每个收养家庭来说都是一个挑战，不管他们是什么种族，也不管他们的孩子是什么种族。”。
“对于(我们的儿子)来说，只是被带走，并转移到一个他从未见过的人那里，他与我没有关系，作为他的母亲，这似乎不是正确的事情，”她谈到这个有部分纳瓦霍血统的男孩。经过两年的法律斗争，纳瓦霍部落退缩了，这对夫妇在2018年赢得了监护权。
该国574个联邦承认的部落得到了最高法院多年裁决的支持，他们认为部落是政治实体，ICWA的偏好与种族无关，这与美国政府为公民身份设定客观要求的方式非常相似。
“法院一直认为印度法律不是基于种族的，”切罗基族副总检察长克里斯·罗斯·尼姆在接受采访时说。
根据国家印第安儿童福利协会的数据，在这个国家，土著儿童被寄养的可能性是白人儿童的四倍。
十多年前，27%的本地寄养儿童被安置在其他家庭成员中;今天，根据2020年收养和寄养分析和报告系统，这一比例高达38%。专家将这一进步归功于ICWA。
在一份声明中，拜登总统对高等法院在哈兰诉布莱肯一案中的裁决表示欢迎，称该裁决“为部落主权和土著儿童提供了重要保护。”
拜登说:“试金石法尊重部落主权，保护土著儿童，帮助土著家庭呆在一起，并尽可能让儿童与他们的大家庭或社区在一起，这些大家庭或社区已经了解他们，爱他们，并能帮助他们了解他们作为土著人民和他们部落国家的公民是谁。”。
Supreme Court upholds law giving Native American families priority in adoption
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a major challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, upholding a landmark law long hailed by tribes for giving priority to Native American families in the adoption of Native children.
The state of Texas and a group of non-Native foster parents had challenged the preferences as an infringement on state authority in child welfare policy and unlawful discrimination on the basis of race.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority in the 7-2 decision, rejected the claims.
"Congress's power to legislate with respect to Indians is well established and broad," wrote Barrett. "When Congress enacts a valid statute pursuant to its Article I powers, state law is naturally preempted … End of story."
Barrett said the court was not deciding, however, whether the law violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment by disfavoring non-Native families because none of the parties in the case was directly injured by that part of the law.
"We do not reach the merits of these claims because no party before the court has standing to raise them," wrote Barrett.
The conclusion leaves the door open to a potential future challenge to the law as discriminatory. "The equal protection issue is serious," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurring opinion that agreed with Barrett's overall judgment but also raised concern.
"A child in foster care or adoption proceedings may in some cases be denied a particular placement because of the child's race," he wrote, "even if the placement is otherwise determined to be in the child's best interest."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in the case. Both argued that Congress did not have the power to displace state authority to manage child placement decisions.
"The Federal Government thus lacks a general police power to regulate state family law," Thomas wrote.
The law, known as ICWA, was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in response to generations of government-sponsored separation of hundreds of thousands of Native children from their families through the 1960s.
Native tribes have long called it the "gold standard" in adoption, requiring state courts to give first preference to a Native child's immediate family, then another member of the child's tribe, then a member of an unrelated tribe, before consideration of parents who are non-native.
Tribal leaders have said the law is critical to keeping their cultures alive and protecting their sovereignty as independent nations.
"Today's decision is a major victory for Native tribes, children, and the future of our culture and heritage," said Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Morongo Band of Mission Indians Chairman Charles Martin, Oneida Nation Chairman Tehassi Hill and Quinault Indian Nation President Guy Capoeman in a statement on the ruling.
"It is also a broad affirmation of the rule of law, and of the basic constitutional principles surrounding relationships between Congress and tribal nations," the leaders said.
A representative for Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, the Texas parents who brought a case against ICWA and are trying to adopt a Native American girl they have been fostering, told ABC News the couple is "crushed" by the court's decision.
Ms. Brackeen, an anesthesiologist, and her husband, a civil engineer turned stay-at-home dad, are parents to two biological children and two Native American siblings -- a 7-year-old boy and 4-year-old girl -- whom they've fostered for years.
While they have successfully adopted their 7-year-old son, his sister's fate has not yet been decided.
Both adoptions, the Brackeens say, have been hindered by ICWA.
By giving adoption priority to American Indian families over white families, they argued, the law discriminates on the basis of race.
"Cultural considerations are a challenge for every adoptive family, no matter what race they are or what race their children are," said Jennifer Brackeen in an interview last year.
"For [our son] to just get taken away and moved to someone he's never met before, who is not related -- to me, it didn't seem like the right thing to do as his mom," she said of the boy, who is part Navajo. The couple won custody in 2018 after a two-year legal battle when the Navajo Nation backed down.
The nation's 574 federally recognized tribes, backed by years of Supreme Court decisions, argued that tribes are political entities and that ICWA's preferences are not about race, much in the same way the U.S. government sets objective requirements for citizenship.
"The Court has always held that Indian law is not race-based," said Cherokee Nation Deputy Attorney General Chrissi Ross Nimmo in an interview law year.
Native children are four times more likely than white children to be placed in foster care in this country, according to the National Indian Child Welfare Association.
More than a decade ago, 27% of Native foster children were placed with other family members; today, it's up to 38%, according to the 2020 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. Experts attribute the improvement to ICWA.
In a statement, President Biden celebrated the high court's decision in the case, Haaland v. Brackeen, saying it "keeps in place a vital protection for tribal sovereignty and Native children."
"The touchstone law respects tribal sovereignty and protects Native children by helping Native families stay together and, whenever possible, keeping children with their extended families or community who already know them, love them, and can help them understand who they are as Native people and citizens of their Tribal Nations," Biden said.
