BRACKEEN v. Cherokee Nation; Oneida Nation; Quinault Indian Nation; Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Intervenor Defendants—Appellants. (2024)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Chad Everet BRACKEEN; Jennifer Kay Brackeen; State of Texas; Altagracia Socorro Hernandez; State of Indiana; Jason Clifford; Frank Nicholas Libretti; State of Louisiana; Heather Lynn Libretti; Danielle Clifford, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Deb HAALAND, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior; Darryl Lacounte, Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; Bureau of Indian Affairs; United States Department of the Interior; United States of America; Xavier Becerra, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants—Appellants, Cherokee Nation; Oneida Nation; Quinault Indian Nation; Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Intervenor Defendants—Appellants.

No. 18-11479

Decided: November 05, 2024

Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Wiener, Stewart, Dennis, Richman, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, Douglas, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.*

Matthew D. McGill, Attorney, David William Casazza, Lochlan Francis Shelfer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Chad Everet Brackeen, Jennifer Kay Brackeen, Altagracia Socorro Hernandez, Jason Clifford, Frank Nicholas Libretti, Heather Lynn Libretti, Danielle Clifford. Beth Ellen Klusmann, Esq., Office of the Texas Attorney General, Austin, TX, David J. Hacker, First Liberty Institute, Plano, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees State of Texas, State of Indiana, State of Louisiana. Adam Howard Charnes, Esq. (argued), Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Kathryn Fort, Michigan State University College of Law, East Lansing, MI, Keith Michael Harper, Jenner & Block, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Mark Reeves, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, L.L.P., Augusta, GA, for Intervenor Defendants-Appellants Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Rachel Heron, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division-Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants Deb Haaland, Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department of Interior, United States of America, Xavier Becerra, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Darryl LaCounte. Paul W. Spruhan, Esq., Navajo Nation Department of Justice, Litigation and Employment Unit, Window Rock, AZ, for Intervenor Navajo Nation. Stephen Richard Ward, Conner & Winters, L.L.P., Tulsa, OK, for Amicus Curiae Quapaw Nation. Christina Riehl, California Department of Justice, Office of The Attorney General - Public Rights Division/Bureau of Children's Justice, San Diego, CA, for Amici Curiae State of California, State of Alaska, States of Connecticut, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and District of Columbia, State of Arizona, State of Colorado, State of Idaho, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Maine, State of Massachusetts, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Mississippi, State of Montana, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Utah, State of Virginia, State of Washington, State of Wisconsin. Klint Cowan, Lippes Mathias, L.L.P., Oklahoma City, OK, Bryan N. B. King, Esq., Attorney, Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, Oklahoma City, OK, for Amicus Curiae United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. Timothy Mason Sandefur, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, AZ, for Amici Curiae Goldwater Institute, Texas Public Policy Foundation, American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. Hyland Hunt, Deutsch Hunt, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Casey Family Programs and 30 Other Organizations Working with Children, Families, and Courts to Support Children's Welfare. Michelle T. Miano, Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae Professor Gregory Ablavsky. Erin C. Dougherty Lynch, Native American Rights Fund, Anchorage, AK, for Amicus Curiae 486 Recognized Tribes, Association on American Indian Affairs, National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Child Welfare Association, and other Indian Organizations. Erin C. Dougherty Lynch, Native American Rights Fund, Anchorage, AK, Samuel Daughety, Dentons US, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae 325 Federally Recognized Tribes, Association on American Indian Affairs, National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Child Welfare Association, and Other Indian Organizations. David Steven Coale, Esq., Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Paulette Miniter, Brown Fox, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Amicus Curiae Administrative Law and Constitutional Law Scholars. Danielle Mary Spinelli, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Alan E. Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Members of Congress. Kendra J. Hall, Senior Counsel, Kerry Kay Patterson, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, L.L.P., San Diego, CA, for Amicus Curiae Native American Women and Indian Tribes and Organizations. Benjamin Michael Flowers, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge & Flowers, L.L.C., Cincinnati, OH, for Amicus Curiae State of Ohio. Krystal Brunner Swendsboe, Wiley Rein, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare. Matthew D. McGill, Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., Washington, DC, April D. Youpee-Roll, Esq., Attorney, Munger, Tolles & Olson, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for Amicus Curiae Indian Law Scholars.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which affirmed our judgment in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 296, 143 S.Ct. 1609, 216 L.Ed.2d 254 (2023). The Court held that: (1) the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is within Congress's Article I authority; (2) the challenged ICWA requirements did not violate the anticommandeering doctrine; and (3) the plaintiffs did not have standing to raise their equal-protection and nondelegation challenges. Id. at 280, 285–87, 291–92, 296, 143 S.Ct. 1609. The Supreme Court did not disturb our court's en banc holding that 25 C.F.R. § 23.132(b), the part of ICWA's implementing regulations that interpreted the statutory “good cause” standard to require proof by clear and convincing evidence, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See id. at 271 n.1, 143 S.Ct. 1609; Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249, 269 (5th Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Accordingly, consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, we REMAND this case to the district court and direct it to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Plaintiffs' equal-protection and nondelegation claims, grant judgment for the federal government as to all other claims, excepting only Plaintiffs' APA challenge to the evidentiary standard at 25 C.F.R. § 23.132(b), and enter final judgment. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

Per Curiam:

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law