1 supreme court
1.1 arguments
1.2 opinion of court
1.3 concurring opinions
1.3.1 justice thomas
1.3.2 justice breyer
1.4 dissenting opinions
1.4.1 justice scalia
1.4.2 justice sotomayor
supreme court
arguments
after south carolina supreme court declined rehear case, capobiancos filed petition supreme court of united states writ of certiorari. 7 entities filed amici curiae briefs supreme court in support of hearing case. included amici briefs 2 former solicitors general of united states, paul clement on behalf of guardian ad litem, , greg garre on behalf of birth mother, suggesting equal protection clause requires applying strict scrutiny icwa’s race-based placement preferences. american academy of adoption attorneys, national council adoption, california state association of counties , center adoption policy among submitted briefs.
on january 4, 2013, court granted certiorari , agreed hear case. second time case involving icwa had been granted review u.s. supreme court, holyfield being first. on april 1, 2013, court decided allow of amici participate in oral argument , divided time allowed oral argument follows: 20 minutes petitioners, 10 minutes respondent guardian ad litem, 20 minutes respondent birth father, , 10 minutes solicitor general. brown represented charles rothfeld, director @ yale law school supreme court clinic , supreme court litigator washington, d.c., office of international law firm mayer brown. cherokee nation represented carter phillips of sidley austin, llp. capobiancos represented lisa blatt , mark fiddler. blatt headed appellate , supreme court practice international law firm arnold & porter. fiddler registered native american attorney , founder of indian child welfare law center @ oral arguments on april 16, u.s. deputy solicitor general edwin kneedler appeared, friend of birth father.
the issues presented court (1) whether non-custodial parent can invoke indian child welfare act of 1978 (icwa), 25 u.s.c. §§ 1901–63, block adoption voluntarily , lawfully initiated non-indian parent under state law; , (2) whether icwa defines parent in 25 u.s.c. § 1903(9) include unwed biological father has not complied state law rules attain legal status parent.
three parties filed merit briefs: capobiancos petitioners, , both brown , cherokee nation respondents. 32 different amici curiae briefs filed arguing merits of case. 9 in favor of reversal , remainder, including united states department of justice, supported respondents and/or affirmation.
opinion of court
justice samuel alito, author of majority opinion
on june 25, court reversed , remanded, justice samuel alito writing 5 justice majority. alito began observing baby girl “is classified indian because 1.2% (3/256) cherokee.” alito went on reject lower court’s reading of icwa, reasoning discourage adoptive couples , leave “vulnerable indian children @ unique disadvantage in finding permanent , loving home.”
alito noted 3 provisions of icwa relevant case, § 1912(f), § 1912(d), , § 1915(a). noted undisputed under south carolina law brown not able object adoption. alito stated heightened standard required under § 1912(f) not apply when parent in question never had custody of child, focusing on phrase continued custody in statute. alito continued § 1912(d) not require remedial efforts made when parent did not have custody. since brown never had either physical or legal custody, no remedial efforts required. finally, § 1915(a) not prevent non-indian couple adopting when no preferred individuals or entities have formally sought adopt child. find otherwise, alito concluded, allow brown “play icwa trump card @ eleventh hour override mother’s decision , child’s best interests.”
concurring opinions
justice thomas
justice clarence thomas issued concurring opinion. thomas believed canon of constitutional avoidance required outcome reached majority. contending there no constitutional authority congress enact icwa, thomas disagreed court’s precedents holding congress has “plenary power” on indian affairs , read indian commerce clause applying trade relations tribes. since application of icwa adoption unconstitutional, , result of majority avoids issue, thomas concurred majority.
justice breyer
justice stephen breyer issued short concurring opinion. breyer stated since icwa not address how treat absentee fathers, court s decision may broad. noted preferential placement order required under § 1915(a) changed tribe under § 1915(c) , tribe could, resolution, grant absentee father place in preferential placement.
dissenting opinions
justice sonia sotomayor, author of dissenting opinion
justice scalia
justice antonin scalia issued short dissenting opinion. scalia noted that, while joined sotomayor’s dissent, disagreed suggestion here “literalness may strangle meaning”. goes on opine phrase continued custody refer custody in future – in other words, if biological father had no custody of child in past, have in future, , therefore usc §1912(f) still apply. scalia noted biological parents had legal rights , there no reason in law or policy dilute rights.
justice sotomayor
justice sonia sotomayor, joined justices ruth bader ginsburg, elena kagan, and, in part, scalia, dissented majority opinion. noting majority seemed consider indian placement preference “unwise”, wrote did not license court “to interpret statute view averting consequences congress expressly stated trying bring about.”
sotomayor reasoned majority ignored icwa’s logical structure , adopted “textually backward reading” starting analysis final clause of §1912(f). sotomayor stated continued custody in § 1912(f) sensibly read refer continuation of parent-child relationship icwa parent has or child. stated non-custodial father-child relationship family purposes of § 1912(d) , therefore efforts needed made prevent breakup. stated majority turned law upside down reach result. rather granting indian birth fathers “undeserved windfall”, sotomayor reasoned congress had provided rights birth fathers enjoyed in several states. instead deferring each state’s laws, sotomayor thinks majority read icwa “an illogical piecemeal scheme”.
responding majority’s suggestion reading avoids “equal protection concerns”, sotomayor noted court’s precedents have long held indian tribal membership not impermissible racial classification. goes on criticize “majority’s repeated, analytically unnecessary references” makeup of baby girl’s ancestry. finally, sotomayor stated majority ignored primary purpose of icwa in interpretation of § 1915(a), , noted there nothing prevent grandparents filing petition adopt child. noted nothing in opinion mandated return of child capobiancos.
cite error: there <ref group=fn> tags on page, references not show without {{reflist|group=fn}} template (see page).
Comments
Post a Comment