Congress made all American Indians citizens of the United States almost a century ago, but the law still relegates them to second-class status in many ways.
Nowhere is this more true than in the case of the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA), a 1978 law that was supposed to protect Native
Americans against abuses by state governments but today harms the very children
it was meant to help. That’s because it creates a separate set of rules for child
welfare lawsuits that involve children who are “eligible” for membership in a
tribe—rules that provide less
protection against abuse or neglect, and often block Native American parents
themselves from taking steps to do what’s best for their kids.
Last October, a federal judge in Texas ruled
that ICWA violates the Constitution in several ways. That case is
on appeal now, and today we filed a
brief—joined by the Cato Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and
the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys—to answer some of the more common
questions and misconceptions surrounding ICWA.
The main legal dilemma in the case is whether ICWA categorizes children
by race—which the Constitution normally forbids—or by tribal status, which the
Supreme Court said
in 1973 is acceptable because that’s a “political” classification.
Most laws that treat Indians differently from non-Indians are regarded as
“political” classifications, and therefore pass muster. But as we explain in
the brief, that’s not true of ICWA, which—alone among federal Indian laws—is
triggered not by tribal membership but by eligibility for membership. All tribes
base eligibility on biological factors only—meaning
that political, cultural, social, religious, or linguistic factors just don’t
count. And that means that ICWA applies to a child based on her biology alone. In fact, when some state courts tried
to consider cultural or social factors when deciding whether to apply ICWA—the
so-called “existing
Indian family doctrine”—tribal governments were outraged, and state
courts largely abandoned the rule. As a result, not only is biology the only factor considered in deciding whether
to apply ICWA, but courts are forbidden
to consider any other factors—including “political” ones.
Provisions of ICWA also make clear that it’s based on race, not
political or cultural considerations. As the trial judge in this case held, it
applies to children who could become
tribal members—but may never do so. It also requires that Indian children be
placed in foster care
with “Indian” adults—regardless of tribe—and that they be adopted
by “other Indian[s]”—again, regardless of tribe. That means an Inuit child must
be adopted by a Seminole family rather than adults of other ethnicities—even
though the Inuit and Seminole tribes have radically different cultures and
histories, and their homelands are farther away than Paris is from Ankara.
This matters because ICWA imposes harmful
rules on kids. This isn’t some kind of affirmative action program—ICWA’s
rules are less protective of children
than the rules that apply to kids of other races. Its “active efforts” rule,
for example, forces state officials to return abused Indian children to the
families that have abused
or neglected
them—which has sometimes resulted in children being murdered,
molested, and repeatedly neglected, despite the state knowing that they’re
suffering. For all other kids, a different, more protective standard called the
“reasonable efforts” rule applies, which allows state officials not to return
kids to parents who have repeatedly mistreated them.
Or consider the rule for “termination of parental rights” (TPR). If a white
mother gets a divorce, later remarries, and wants her new husband to legally
adopt her son as his own, she can do so through a TPR proceeding that requires
her to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that this is best for the
child. But if an Indian mother gets a
divorce, later remarries, and wants her new husband to adopt her son, she must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt, with the
testimony of expert witnesses, that
the child faces serious harm otherwise. That’s an extremely high standard of
proof—a higher standard than is required in death-penalty cases—and it’s a difficult
and expensive undertaking that many Indian moms can’t afford. The result is
that ICWA often violates
the rights of Indian parents themselves. In the T.A.W.case in Washington State, for example,
a non-Indian father used this rule to
prohibit his ex-wife from enabling her new husband—a tribal member—from
adopting her son. And in other
cases, where Indian parents try to terminate the rights of abusive
or neglectful exes, ICWA stands in the way.
You might think this separate and substandard treatment violates the
ancient rule that the “best interests of the child” should be the foremost
consideration in child welfare cases. But courts have also declared that ICWA overrides the “best interests” rule—in
fact, Texas courts have ruled
that the “best interests” test is an “Anglo standard” that shouldn’t be applied
to Indian children. And California courts have ruled
that while a child’s best interests is the most important factor for kids of other races, it’s just “one of the
constellation of factors” to be considered for Indian kids.
Not only does ICWA violate the rights of Indian kids and parents, it
also violates constitutional rules that give states the primary authority over
family law. ICWA, after all, does not
apply on reservations—it applies to children who live in cities and suburbs
just like their black, white, Asian, or Hispanic peers. It forces state child
welfare officers to apply its separate set of rules—something the Supreme Court
has declared
unconstitutional—and it forces states to treat kids differently based on race,
when they otherwise would have treated those kids equally. In 2012, the Supreme
Court said
that’s unconstitutional, too.
Congress passed ICWA with good intentions: to prevent the breakup of Indian families and protect the rights of kids and parents. But instead, it perpetuates the long and regrettable history of denying Native Americans the legal equality to which they’re entitled. ICWA often functions in practice as an obstacle to Indian families and a burden on Indian kids, many of whom face extraordinary risks. As we explain in detail in the brief, prioritizing racial separation over the best interests of children and depriving them of the safe, loving, and permanent, adoptive homes they often need, is no “gold standard.” It’s a violation of their fundamental human rights.
Timothy Sandefur is the Vice President for Litigation at the
Goldwater Institute.
Since 1988, the Goldwater Institute has been in the liberty business — defending and promoting freedom, and achieving more than 400 victories in all 50 states. Donate today to help support our mission.
We Protect Your Rights
Our attorneys defend individual rights and protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Sign up for the latest news, event updates, and more.
Wait! Don’t close this yet!
We are grateful for your support of the Goldwater Institute’s efforts to advance and defend liberty throughout the United States. For over 36 years, we’ve been defending the rights of Americans to live their lives free from government interference.
And Goldwater is unique in that we direct our efforts to the 50 states where we introduce and advance innovative ideas that expand freedom. And we fight in courtrooms and capitals nationwide to defend individual liberty.
In 2024 alone, we scored over 50 policy and litigation victories defending liberty!
And that’s just the beginning.
Our plans for 2025 include:
Stopping pernicious DEI and other woke programs in America’s universities.
Ensuring that patients suffering from rare and terminal diseases have access to cutting-edge, lifesaving medical treatments, without having to first seek permission from the government.
Defending parental rights across the United States so that parents can send their kids to the school that best fits their needs, free from leftist indoctrination.
Eliminating government interference in the fundamental right of individuals to own property and use it as they see fit.
And much, much more
We seek to restore the presumption of liberty; that people are free to act without first asking permission from the government.
But we cannot do this without you. Will you join us as we fight to preserve and advance liberty throughout the country? As we seek new and innovative ways to defend freedom in all 50 states?
And there’s great news: Thanks to a generous Goldwater supporter, your donation today will be doubled!
So please, join us in fighting to advance liberty and score real wins for freedom from coast to coast!