| Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 11, 1989 Decided April 3, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Orrey Curtiss Holyfield et ux., J.B., Natural Mother and W.J., Natural Father |
| Citations | 490 U.S. 30 (more) 109 S. Ct. 1597; 104 L. Ed. 2d 29; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1791 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | In the Matter of B.B. and G.B., Minors, 511 So. 2d 918 (Miss. 1987) |
| Holding | |
| That: (1) though "domicile" in the Indian Child Welfare Act was not statutorily defined, Congress did not intend for state courts to define that term as matter of state law, and (2) children were "domiciled" on reservation when both parents lived on the reservation, and the state court was without jurisdiction to enter adoption decree | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy |
| Laws applied | |
| 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1963 | |
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Indian Child Welfare Act governed adoptions of Indian children. It ruled that a tribal court had jurisdiction over a state court, regardless of the location of birth of the child, if the child or the natural parents resided on the reservation.[1]