Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield et al.
490 U.S. 30 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the determination of an Indian child's domicile for jurisdictional purposes is a matter of uniform federal law, not state law. An Indian child's domicile follows that of their parents, even if the child has never been physically present in that domicile.
Facts:
- J.B. (mother) and W.J. (father) were enrolled members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and were domiciled on the Choctaw Reservation in Mississippi.
- J.B. arranged to give birth to twin babies in Gulfport, Mississippi, approximately 200 miles from the reservation.
- The twins were born on December 29, 1985.
- Shortly after the births, on January 10 and 11, 1986, both J.B. and W.J. executed forms consenting to the termination of their parental rights and the adoption of the twins.
- The parents had pre-arranged for the twins to be adopted by Orrey and Vivian Holyfield.
Procedural Posture:
- Orrey and Vivian Holyfield filed a petition for adoption in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, a state trial court.
- The Chancery Court entered a Final Decree of Adoption.
- The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians filed a motion to vacate the decree, asserting that the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction under the ICWA.
- The Chancery Court overruled the Tribe's motion.
- The Tribe, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
- The Supreme Court of Mississippi, the state's highest court, affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding the state court had proper jurisdiction because the twins were never domiciled on the reservation.
- The Tribe sought review from the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, are Indian children 'domiciled' on a reservation for purposes of exclusive tribal court jurisdiction if their unmarried mother is domiciled on the reservation, even if the children were born off-reservation and immediately placed for adoption in state court by their parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. For purposes of the ICWA, the domicile of Indian children follows that of their mother, thus placing them within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribal court regardless of their physical location. Congress intended a uniform federal definition of 'domicile' to prevent the ICWA's purpose from being undermined by varying state laws or the actions of individual parents. The court's reasoning is based on several key points: First, the ICWA was enacted to protect the interests of not only Indian children and families, but also the tribes themselves, which have a vital interest in their children. Second, allowing state law to define a key jurisdictional term like 'domicile' would create non-uniformity and permit parents to forum-shop, frustrating congressional intent. Third, established common-law principles dictate that a minor child's domicile is that of their parents—and for an illegitimate child, traditionally the mother. Therefore, the twins were domiciled on the Choctaw Reservation at birth, and the parents' subsequent actions could not unilaterally defeat the tribe's exclusive jurisdiction under § 1911(a).
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The Court's rigid definition of 'domicile' defeats the parents' clear intent and goes against the primary purpose of the ICWA, which was to prevent the unwarranted and involuntary removal of Indian children. The dissent argues that the ICWA also protects parental rights, including the right to choose a forum. In this case, the parents deliberately sought out the state court system and, through their actions, legally 'abandoned' the children to the Holyfields, thereby changing the children's domicile to that of their new custodians. The majority's holding improperly restricts the rights of Indian parents, forcing them to establish a new domicile off-reservation if they wish to utilize state adoption procedures, which undermines rather than promotes the stability of Indian families.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened tribal sovereignty by establishing 'domicile' under the ICWA as a uniform federal concept immune to state-law manipulation. It affirmed that the ICWA protects the tribe's collective interest in its children, an interest that is on par with, and in jurisdictional matters under § 1911(a), can supersede the wishes of the individual parents. The ruling prevents parents from circumventing exclusive tribal jurisdiction by simply giving birth off-reservation. This precedent ensures a consistent application of the ICWA's jurisdictional rules nationwide and solidifies the central role of tribal courts in the lives of their member children.
Unlock the full brief for Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield et al.