Brackeen v. Haaland

[Editor’s Note: The 2022 supplement to the casebook American Indian Law: Native Nations and the Federal System (Rebecca Tsosie & Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely eds., 7th ed. Supp. 2022) erroneously gives the citation for this case as “94 F.3d 249.” The correct citation is “994 F.3d 249 (2021).”] [Editor’s Note: In compliance with the casebook excerpt, the discussion in this brief is strictly limited to the equal-protection challenge raised against the Indian Child Welfare Act’s definition of “Indian child.” The myriad other issues raised in Brackeen v. Haaland are omitted.] The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) governs custody proceedings involving Indian children. Under ICWA, an Indian child is defined as a child who is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or who is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. The State of Texas, the State of Louisiana, and the State of Indiana, along with a group of non-Indians who each attempted to adopt or foster an Indian child (collectively, the ICWA challengers) (plaintiffs) sued the United States (defendant), arguing that ICWA was unconstitutional on various grounds. Five Indian tribes were subsequently permitted to intervene. Specifically, and in relevant part, the ICWA challengers argued that ICWA’s definition of “Indian child” violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was an impermissible race-based classification. The district court agreed and granted the ICWA challengers summary judgment. The United States appealed to the Fifth Circuit.