U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 21— INDIAN CHILD WELFARE

25 U.S.C. § 1901

Congressional findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
Recognizing the special relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes and their members and the Federal responsibility to Indian people, the Congress finds—(1) that clause 3, section 8, article I of the United States Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power * * * To regulate Commerce * * * with Indian tribes 11 So in original. Probably should be capitalized.” and, through this and other constitutional authority, Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs;(2) that Congress, through statutes, treaties, and the general course of dealing with Indian tribes, has assumed the responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and their resources;(3) that there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children and that the United States has a direct interest, as trustee, in protecting Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe;(4) that an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions; and(5) that the States, exercising their recognized jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings through administrative and judicial bodies, have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.(Pub. L. 95–608, § 2, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3069.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 95–608, § 1, Nov. 8, 1987, 92 Stat. 3069, provided: “That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,536 cases (1,305 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Brackeen v. Haaland
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brackeen v. Haaland (2021) ca5 · cites it 15× “* Per Curiam: This en banc matter considers the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., and the validity of implementing regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in its 2016 Final Rule (Final Rule).”
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield (1989) scotus · cites it 8× “" 25 U. S. C. § 1901 . At the heart of the ICWA are its provisions concerning jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings.”
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013) scotus · cites it 8× “3069 , 25 U. S. C. §§1901–1963, was the product of rising concern in the mid-1970’s over the consequences to In- dian children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of abusive child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their…”
Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B. (2017) utah · cites it 6× “25 U.S.C. § 1901 (4). So, far from being "recognize[d] .”
People v. W.B. (2012) cal · cites it 5× “Passed in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA, or the Act) formalizes federal policy relating to the placement of Indian children outside the family home.”
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Ashlee R. (2016) cal · cites it 2× “The federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) provides: “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination…”
in Interest of L.M (2018) coloctapp · cites it 2× “ICWA Compliance ¶ 59 Although not raised by father on appeal, the record does not demonstrate full compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 to 1963 (2012). ¶ 60 ICWA’s provisions are for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and…”
Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) scotus · cites it 3× “3069 , 25 U. S. C. § 1901 (4). Congress found that many of these children were being “placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institu- tions,” and that the States had contributed to the problem by “fail[ing] to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people…”
Quinn v. Walters (1994) or · cites it 20× “The first issue presented is whether there was sufficient admissible evidence in the record that the child whose adoption is sought is an “Indian child” within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 USC § 1901 et seq. 1 If there was sufficient evidence on…”
The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Children My. K.M. and Ma. K.M., V. K.L. and T.A.M. (2022) colo · cites it 2× “" 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (4); see also Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub.”
In Re the Adoption of Sara J. (2005) alaska · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (1978). [2] 25 U.”
In Re Adoption of Crews (1992) wash · cites it 8× “This form provides that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) ( 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. ) was not applicable to the proceedings.”
Show all 2,536 citing cases →
— 25 U.S.C. § 1901(4) — 2 cases
Yavapai-Apache Tribe v. Mejia (1995) texapp
IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.H.S. (2016) oklacivapp
— 25 U.S.C. § 1901(5) — 1 case
In re L.L. (2019) utahctapp
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.