Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
Holding
Assuming for the sake of argument that the biological father in this case is a "parent" for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the act still does not bar termination of the biological father's paternal rights.
Judgment
Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Samuel Alito on Jun 25, 2013. Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Scalia joined in part.
Holding: Assuming for the sake of argument that the biological father in this case is a “parent” for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Act still does not bar termination of the biological father’s paternal rights.
Judgment:”Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 25, 2013. Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Scalia joined in part.
Recommended Citation: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/