|
 Treaties
From "Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties" compiled by Charles Kappler to 1913
Executive Orders Pertaining to the DLN
From "Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties" compiled by Charles Kappler to 1913
Laws Pertaining to the DLN
From "Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties" compiled by Charles Kappler to 1913
Proclamations Pertaining to the DLN
From "Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties" compiled by Charles Kappler to 1913
Supreme Court Rulings Pertaining to the DLN
Supreme Court of the United States
BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v. YOUPEE et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 95-1595. Argued December 2, 1996 -- Decided January 21, 1997
In the late Nineteenth Century, Congress initiated an Indian land program
that authorized the allotment of communal Indian property to individual
tribal members. This allotment program resulted in the extreme fractionation
of Indian lands as allottees passed their undivided interests on to multiple
heirs through descent or devise. In 1983, Congress adopted the Indian Land
Consolidation Act in part to reduce fractionated ownership of allotted
lands. Section 207 of the Act--the "escheat" provision--prohibited the
descent or devise of fractional interests that constituted 2 percent or
less of the total acreage in an allotted tract and earned less than $100
in the preceding year. Instead of passing to heirs, the interests described
in §207 would escheat to the tribe, thereby consolidating the ownership
of Indian lands. Section 207 made no provision for the payment of compensation
to those who held such fractional interests. In Hodel v. Irving,
481
U.S. 704, this Court invalidated the original version of §207
on the ground that it effected a taking of private property without just
compensation, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. Id., at 716-718. Considering, first, the economic
impact of §207, the Court observed that the provision's income generation
test might fail to capture the actual economic value of the land. Id.,
at 714. Weighing most heavily against the constitutionality of §207,
however, was the "extraordinary" character of the Government regulation,
id., at 716, which amounted to the virtual abrogation of the rights
of descent and devise, id., at 716-717. While Irving was
pending in the Court of Appeals, Congress amended §207. Amended §207
differs from the original provision in three relevant respects: it looks
back five years instead of one to determine the income produced from a
small interest, and creates a rebuttable presumption that this income stream
will continue; it permits devise of otherwise escheatable interests to
persons who already own an interest in the same parcel; and it authorizes
tribes to develop their own codes governing the disposition of fractional
interests. The will of William Youpee, an enrolled member of the Sioux
and Assiniboine Tribes, devised to respondents, all of them enrolled tribal
members, his several undivided interests in allotted lands on reservations
in Montana and North Dakota. Each interest was devised to a single descendant.
Youpee's will thus perpetuated existing fractionation, but it did not splinter
ownership further by bequeathing any single fractional interest to multiple
devisees. In a proceeding to determine claims against and heirs to Youpee's
estate, an administrative law judge in the Department of the Interior found
that interests devised to each of the respondents fell within the compass
of amended §207 and should therefore escheat to the relevant tribal
governments. Respondents, asserting the unconstitutionality of amended
§207, appealed the order to the Board of Indian Appeals. The Board,
stating that it did not have jurisdiction to consider respondents' constitutional
claim, dismissed the appeal. Respondents then filed this suit against the
Secretary of the Interior, alleging that amended §207 violates the
Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. The District Court agreed with respondents and granted their
request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Amended §207
does not cure the constitutional deficiency this Court identified in the
original version of §207. The Court is guided by Irving in
determining whether the amendments to §207 render the provision constitutional.
The United States maintains that the amendments moderate the economic impact
of the provision and temper the character of the Government's regulation.
However, the narrow revisions Congress made to §207, without benefit
of this Court's ruling in Irving, do not warrant a disposition different
than the one announced and explained in Irving. Amended §207
permits a five year window rather than a one year window to assess the
income generating capacity of a fractional interest, and the United States
urges that this alteration substantially mitigates the economic impact
of §207. But amended §207 still trains on income generated from
the land, not on the value of the parcel. Even if the income generated
by such parcels may be typed de minimis, the value of the land may
not fit that description. 481 U. S., at 714. The United States correctly
comprehends that Irving rested primarily on the "extraordinary"
character of the governmental regulation: the "virtua[l] abrogation" of
the right of descent and devise, id., at 716. The United States
contends, however, that Congress cured the fatal infirmity in §207
when it revised the section to allow transmission of fractional interests
to successors who already own an interest in the allotment. But this change
does not rehabilitate the measure. Amended §207 severely restricts
the right of an individual to direct the descent of his property by shrinking
drastically the universe of possible successors. And, as the Ninth Circuit
observed, the "very limited group [of permissible devisees] is unlikely
to contain any lineal descendants." 67 F. 3d 194, 199-200. Moreover, amended
§207 continues to restrict devise "even in circumstances when the
governmental purpose sought to be advanced, consolidation of ownership
of Indian lands, does not conflict with the further descent of the property."
481 U. S., at 718. As the United States acknowledges, giving effect to
Youpee's directive bequeathing each fractional interest to one heir would
not further fractionate Indian land holdings. The United States' arguments
that amended §207 satisfies the Constitution's demand because it does
not diminish the owner's right to use or enjoy property during his lifetime
and does not affect the right to transfer property at death through non
probate means are no more persuasive today than they were in Irving.
See id., at 716-718. The third alteration made in amended §207
also fails to bring the provision outside the reach of this Court's holding
in Irving: Tribal codes governing disposition of escheatable interests
have apparently not been developed. Pp. 8-11.
67 F. 3d 194,
affirmed.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the
opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia,
Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a
dissenting opinion.
From the Supreme Court Collection on the web. A searchable database.
home : mission statement : contact : site map : search : store : links
DLN coalition : DLN issues : DLN nation : related issues Any reprints are under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyright law : See http://www.dlncoalition.org/fair_use.htm.
|
