SCOTUS upholds law keeping Indigenous children with tribal families

• Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The big picture: Indigenous leaders had argued that placing Native children in non-Native families could result in cultural genocide and compared it to forced boarding schools of the past.

• Three white families, the state of Texas and other states claimed the law is based on race and is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.

State of play: The federal law requires states to notify tribal governments after child welfare cases and seek placement with the child's extended family, members of the child's tribe or other Native American families.

Background: The challenge to the law came after Chad and Jennifer Brackeen of Fort Worth, Texas, sought to adopt a Navajo girl.

• The couple had already adopted her Navajo/Cherokee brother after a fight with the Navajo Nation, but the tribe wanted the girl placed with a great-aunt who lived on a reservation.

Details: The U.S. Supreme Court determined that neither Texas nor the parents had legal standing to make that argument in this case.

What they're saying: "We hope this decision will lay to rest the political attacks aimed at diminishing tribal sovereignty and creating instability throughout Indian law that have persisted for too long," said Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a joint statement with other tribal leaders.

• "The Indian Child Welfare Act is a vital tool for protecting Navajo families and communities, and we are grateful that the Supreme Court has recognized its importance," Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said.

Yes, but: Justices said the Brackeens and others could make their arguments in state court proceedings.

What's next: Matthew McGill, who represented the Brackeens at the Supreme Court, told The Associated Press he would press a racial discrimination claim in state court.