1. This Court recently explained that, "In the usual course, state courts apply state law when placing children in foster or adoptive homes," however "when the child is an Indian, a federal statute—the Indian Child Welfare Act—governs." Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 263-64 (2023). Does the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, preclude a state from enacting a state law to determine the foster care or adoptive placement of an Indian child?

2. Under the Oregon Indian Child Welfare Act, upon the consent of an Indian child's tribe, the state shall transfer the placement process to the tribal authority for a determination of whether to permanently sever the relationship between the parent and the Indian child and thereby effectively terminate the parent's parental rights. Once the tribal authority renders its decision, the Oregon court shall verify that decision with a judgment of adoption of the Indian child. When the tribal process lacks due process protection for the parent, and the tribal authority effectively terminates the parent's parental rights by permanently severing the legal relationship between the parent and the Indian child, does the state violate a parent's right to due process when the state court signs a judgment of adoption without an evidentiary hearing?

Whether the Supremacy Clause precludes a state from enacting state law to determine foster care or adoptive placement of an Indian child, and whether a state court violates a parent's due process rights by signing a judgment of adoption without an evidentiary hearing when the tribal process lacks due process protections for the parent