United States Supreme Court has preserved the system that gives preference to Native American families in foster care and adoption cases involving Native American children, rejecting a campaign from three Republican-led states and white families.
The long-running case known as Brackeen v Haaland ended on Thursday with the court upholding the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which was enacted to address the fact Native American children were being separated from their families and placed in non-Native homes at an alarming rate.
Opponents of the Act, who brought the case, argued it was based on race, rather than tribal identity.
In August five tribes filed a brief with the Supreme Court defending the Act, in which Cherokee Nation principal chief Chuck Hoskin Jnr, Morongo Band of Mission Indians chairman Charles Martin, Navajo Nation president Jonathan Nez, Oneida Nation chairman Tehassi Hill and Quinault Indian Nation president Guy Capoeman said tribes and children were better off when Native children could stay with their family and community.
They argued the Act protects tribal sovereignty and self-governance by safeguarding children against "unwarranted removals by non-Indians and states".
In a separate statement issued at the time, tribal leaders said the Act was widely supported.
"If those attacking ICWA are successful, they would not only dismantle a law that is central to our sovereign interests in protecting our children but also create chaos and instability throughout the country by overturning the basic framework of Indian law and the political nature of tribal citizenship," they said.
Before the Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978, between 25 per cent and 35 per cent of Native American children were being taken from their homes and placed with adoptive families, in foster care, or in institutions. Most were placed with non-Native families or in the notorious boarding school system in attempts to break their connection with their culture and people and assimilate them into colonial settler society.
In the majority decision, which came down 7-2, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that while the "issues are complicated", the "bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute".
When a Native American child is separated from their immediate family, the Indian Child Welfare Act requires states to notify tribes and seek placement with the child's extended family, members of their tribe, or, as a third resort, another Native American family.
Three white families and attorneys general from a small number of Republican states, argued the law was race-based and unconstitutional.
The lead plaintiffs, Chad and Jennifer Brackeen of Fort Worth, Texas, had adopted a Native American child after a prolonged legal battle with the Navajo Nation and later sought to adopt the boy's half-sister, now aged four. The Navajo Nation opposed that adoption.
More than 75 per cent of the 574 federally recognised tribes in the United States and more than 20 state attorneys general, including Republicans and Democrats, had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law.
The other children involved in the case are enrolled or could be enrolled as Navajo, Cherokee, White Earth Band of Ojibwe and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.
