Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/758/1260/63448/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:13:19+00:00

Document:
Yvette Hall War Bonnet, Mission, S.D., for appellants.
Blake A. Watson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
The issue before us is the constitutionality of 25 U.S.C. § 2206 (1982),1 which provides that de minimis shares of land allotted in trust to individual members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe may not pass by intestacy or devise but instead escheat to that tribe. The designated heirs and devisees of three deceased tribe members argue that this statute deprives them of property without just compensation in violation of the fifth amendment. The district court found the provision constitutional. We reverse.
25 U.S.C. § 2206 (as originally enacted).
Mary Irving, Patrick Pumpkin Seed, and Duane, Miguel, Hope, Anthony, and Faith Cross (hereafter "Irving"), members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, all had parents or uncles as to whom they were potential heirs or named devisees die within six months after the Indian Land Consolidation Act was passed. Upon receiving notice that a hearing had been scheduled for the week of October 24, 1983, to determine if the Oglala Tribe had a right through escheat to any lands of her decedent that might otherwise have passed to her, Irving filed this suit in district court. Her complaint requested preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement by the Department of Interior of section 2206 with a declaratory judgment that the provision was unconstitutional as authorizing seizure of her property without the just compensation required by the fifth amendment. The district court restrained the government from proceeding under the escheat provision for a time but then consolidated the preliminary and permanent injunction issues and denied relief, holding that Irving had only an expectancy of heirship, which could be altered by intervening legislation, and not a vested property right, which would have been entitled to constitutional protection.
It is clear that the vested property rights of individual Indians are "secured and enforced to the same extent and in the same way" as the equivalent rights of other citizens. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 677, 32 S. Ct. 565, 570, 56 L. Ed. 941 (1912); see Morrow v. United States, 243 F. 854 (8th Cir. 1917). It is also clear, however, that Congress may alter and condition rights that have not yet vested in individual Indians, see Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast, 425 U.S. 649, 96 S. Ct. 1793, 48 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1976); United States v. Jim, 409 U.S. 80, 93 S. Ct. 261, 34 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1972) (per curiam), and that the right to receive property by inheritance or devise does not attain the dignity of a property right entitled to the protection of the fifth amendment taking clause.3 5 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property Sec. 2405, at 199 (J. Grimes ed. 1979); id. Sec. 2406, at 211; id. Sec. 2411, at 240; see also Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U.S. 288, 294, 38 S. Ct. 516, 518, 62 L. Ed. 1117 (1918); Simmons v. Eagle Seelatsee, 244 F. Supp. 808, 814 n. 11 (E.D. Wash. 1965), aff'd per curiam, 384 U.S. 209, 86 S. Ct. 1459, 16 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1966). Cf. L. Simes & A. Smith, The Law of Future Interests Sec. 1, at 3-4 (2d ed. 1956) (possibility of taking property by inheritance or devise does not constitute "future interest" because the prospective taker is not considered to have any part of the present ownership interest). Irving on appeal thus asserts two theories by which she allegedly acquired fifth amendment rights in the questioned lands in her decedent's estate--first, that her interest vested upon the death of her ancestor while the escheat provision could operate only subsequent to that time; and second, that the language of the initial allotments of Indian land to Oglala tribe members around 1900 created vested interests in potential heirs, including her, under the common law or as a matter of contract.
Irving's first argument relies on a disingenuous and excessively technical construction of certain words in section 2206. "Escheat," Irving reasons, denotes the operation by which the government acquires the right to an estate left vacant because the possessor has died intestate without heirs. Therefore, when heirs exist, their rights vest instantly at death, before the state can take any interest, and the use of the term "escheat" in section 2206 is a "subterfuge" for the taking without compensation of Irving's already vested property rights.
The statute, however, on its face contemplates the existence of heirs or even devisees, and Congress earlier had already provided that certain Indian lands were to escheat to the tribe, as opposed to the state or federal government, when the possessor died without heirs. 25 U.S.C. § 373a (1982). "Escheat," then, seemingly was not intended to have in section 2206 the limited meaning ascribed to it by Irving. A statute should be construed to make sense, see Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, 458 U.S. 564, 575, 102 S. Ct. 3245, 3252, 73 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1982), and so as to support, rather than defeat, its constitutionality. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 46, 52 S. Ct. 285, 290, 76 L. Ed. 598 (1932). The sensible reading of section 2206 is that Congress, exercising its power as sovereign4 to control disposition of property at death, declared a limited class of property rights incapable of so passing. See Irving Trust Co. v. Day, 314 U.S. 556, 562, 62 S. Ct. 398, 401, 86 L. Ed. 452 (1942); Mager v. Grima, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 490, 12 L. Ed. 1168 (1850); 5 G. Thompson, supra, Sec. 2406, at 212; 5A G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property Sec. 2607, at 354 (J. Grimes ed. 1978). Thus, no interest within the purview of the statute could ever have vested in Irving.
Such an interpretation further is not inconsistent with the presence of the term "escheat," which, to use the definition cited by Irving, is " [a] reversion of property to the state in consequence of a want of any individual competent to inherit." Black's Law Dictionary 488 (5th ed. 1979) (emphasis added). Irving limits the meaning of "any individual competent to inherit" to "heirs"; but since "heirs" themselves are identified and ordered by the sovereign, 5 G. Thompson, supra, Sec. 2405, at 202, 240,6 there seems no reason why the sovereign could not use the terminology "escheat" in purporting to make parties incompetent to inherit for reasons other than lack of a sufficient degree of relationship. "Escheat" historically was used to refer to the operation by which a sovereign acquired title to land due to, for example, the possessor's misconduct, as well as upon death without heirs. Id. Sec. 2510, at 464-65. The term now may encompass the passing to the sovereign of land that has been abandoned or as to which the owner is missing or which is illegally held by a corporation. Id. Sec. 2511, at 474.7 Thus, the use of "escheat" is actually most consistent not with Irving's interpretation that section 2206 takes land already vested in Indian heirs and devisees but with the interpretation that the government has deemed that no person shall be "competent" to inherit certain de minimis interests in land. Affected de minimis interests thus could never vest in purported heirs and devisees and did not vest in Irving here so that she has no property right protectible under the fifth amendment taking clause.
that the United States does and will hold the lands thus allotted * * * in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs according to the laws of the State or Territory where such land is located * * * Provided further, That the law of descent and partition in force in the State or Territory where the lands may be situated shall apply thereto * * *.
Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 405, Sec. 11, 25 Stat. 888, 891.
Initially we point out that, contrary to the manner in which the Irving cited this passage in her brief, the "heirs" language appears only in the context of identifying beneficiaries of the trusts and not in conjunction with grants of interests to individual Indians; the term may function merely to indicate that the trust status of the lands was to continue upon the death of holders of equitable interests.8 Further, since we have no evidence that Irving's decedent was an original allottee, she cannot claim a vested right by construing the patents as creating life estates in the allottees: the remainders would then vest fees in the first generation of heirs and would not pass rights to the allottees' future decedents. Creation of a fee tail generally requires an express reference, absent here, to heirs "of his body" or other words of procreation, 4 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property Sec. 1866, at 483 (J. Grimes ed. 1979), and such an estate also would not create a vested interest in Irving because heirs apparent in tail again have only expectancies. L. Simes & A. Smith, supra, Sec. 398. Irving, rather, seems to be relying either on an ancient common law theory that land was actually owned by families rather than individuals such that heirs had property rights which could not be defeated by alienation without their consent, see 5 G. Thompson, supra, Sec. 2406, at 206-08; id. Sec. 2410, at 234, or, as clarified in her reply brief, on the maxim that enactments should be construed in favor of and as they would have been understood by the Indians, Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 675-77, 32 S. Ct. 565, 569-70, 56 L. Ed. 941 (1912); Antoine v. United States, 637 F.2d 1177, 1179-80 (8th Cir. 1981), particularly when, as here, the statute is in the nature of a treaty or contract and would not have taken effect absent approval by the tribe. See Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 405, Sec. 28, 25 Stat. 888, 899.
All these theories are subject to several objections. First, the existence of any vested right in an allottee's heirs would mean that an Indian to whom the land was allotted would have no power to dispose of that property by will. Subsequent enactments of Congress, however, assume such a power of devise and presume to oversee and condition it. E.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 373, 464 (1982). Irving does not even seem to recognize the implications of her argument as to these statutes; in fact, certain of her fellow plaintiffs are actually claiming under a will rather than as intestate heirs. Cf. L. Simes & A. Smith, supra, Sec. 403, at 433 (courts' concern with finding vested rights in potential heirs and devisees springs in part from the intolerable interference with owner control over property that thus would be allowed).
Second, the language of the allotment act pursuant to which the Oglala Sioux took their individual trust patents expressly provides that state law as to intestate succession shall control. Such a reference would be unnecessary if the allotment by its terms had already created vested rights in certain heirs.9 Finally, we point out that Congress, when it has so intended, has made clear in its statutes that lands allotted in trust to individual Indians were to pass to those individuals' heirs. E.g., Act of June 30, 1902, ch. 1323, Sec. 16, 32 Stat. 500, 503 ("The homestead of each citizen shall remain, after the death of the allottee, for the use and support of children born to him after May 25, 1901, but if he have no such issue then he may dispose of his homestead by will * * *."); Act of Feb. 6, 1871, ch. 38, Sec. 8, 16 Stat. 404, 407 (" [T]he lands assigned and allotted as aforesaid shall be held inalienable, and in case of the death of any person, his or her right thereto shall descend to his or her heirs * * *."); cf. Treaty with the Omahas, Mar. 16, 1854, art. 6, 10 Stat. 1043, 1044 (The President "may prescribe such rules and regulations as will insure to the family, in case of the death of the head thereof, the possession and enjoyment of such permanent home"); Treaty with the Ottoes & Missourias, Mar. 15, 1854, art. 6, 10 Stat. 1038, 1039 (identical language except "secure" used in place of "insure").
The second part of this test is obviously met here. Irving's decedent cannot rise from the grave to assert his own rights. The right to pass property by devise or inheritance, however, cannot truly be exercised until death; seemingly the right must contemplate not just, for example, the writing of the will but also the disposition of the property according to the wishes expressed therein. If heirs and devisees do not have standing to assert their decedents' rights during settlement of estates, rights of devise and inheritance become mirages shimmering in life but vanishing at death upon attempted use.
The nature of the right to dispose of property at death also has implications for the first factor of the third-party standing test, i.e., the relationship between the litigant and the person whose rights he seeks to assert. Since the act of passing property has no meaning absent receipt by the selected beneficiary, section 2206 clearly "preclude [s] or otherwise adversely affect [s] a relationship existing between [Irving] and the persons whose rights assertedly are violated." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 510, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 2211, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1975). " [E]njoyment of the right [of passing property at death] is inextricably bound up with the activity [inheriting property] the litigant wishes to pursue." Singleton, 428 U.S. at 114, 96 S. Ct. at 2874. We cannot see where the issues would have been more concretely presented or vigorously contested in a suit brought by Irving's decedent prior to his death. Id. at 115, 96 S. Ct. at 2874; see also Secretary of State v. Joseph H. Munson Co., --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 2839, 2848, 81 L. Ed. 2d 786 (1984). There is no conflict of interest between Irving and her decedent. See Gold Cross Ambulance, 705 F.2d at 1016; see also Munson Co., 104 S. Ct. at 2848.
Section 2206 in requiring that certain de minimis shares of land escheat to the individual Indians' tribes upon death in essence reduces the ownership interests of those allottees from fees to life estates, a diminution which the Supreme Court has suggested in dicta would constitute a taking without compensation in violation of the fifth amendment. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 674, 32 S. Ct. 565, 569, 56 L. Ed. 941 (1912). We need not, however, reach that far (or consider the issue of other possible constitutional limits on the power of the sovereign to abrogate inheritance, see supra note 3) to find that the decedents in this case had vested rights in being able to control the disposition of their property at death. Our analysis instead begins with an evaluation of the rights created in the allotment statute and patents.
The Supreme Court in Choate considered whether Congress could through subsequent legislation remove the tax exemption from lands allotted to individual Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians pursuant to the Atoka Agreement, which was bodily incorporated in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, ch. 517, Sec. 29, 30 Stat. 495, 505, 507. The Court stated that while a statute could be repealed at the will of Congress, rights acquired thereunder could not be destroyed and held that each allottee had gained a vested right protected by the Constitution because his patent was issued only on the condition that he relinquish all claims to former commonly held Indian tribal property. 224 U.S. at 671-72, 32 S. Ct. at 567-68. Each Indian had "furnished a consideration which was sufficient to entitle [him] to enforce whatever rights were conferred," id. at 672, 32 S. Ct. at 568; since the Indians were bound by their concessions and could no longer be heard to assert claims to former common tribal lands, the United States similarly was to be bound by the rights it conveyed in the statute and allotment patents. Id. at 674, 32 S. Ct. at 569. The tax exemption was a property right incident to the land which had vested in the individual Indian allottees pursuant to the statute and patents. Id. at 673-77, 32 S. Ct. at 568-70.
While the tax exemption in Choate was expressly limited to the original allottees, our subsequent decisions show that if more expansive vested rights are created, they may devolve to and be enforced by Indian successors to patent lands. See County of Thurston v. Andrus, 586 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 952, 99 S. Ct. 2181, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1057 (1979). Nor do we have trouble finding in other regards that the logic of Choate applies to the allotment statute at issue here. In Thurston we construed the prototype allotment act (see supra note 2) as being, as in Choate, in the nature of a bargain, 586 F.2d at 1220; and the Sioux allotment act at issue here in fact has a specific clause to the effect that acceptance of benefits thereunder by individual Indians would be taken as a release of those individuals' claims to tribal lands. Act of Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 405, Sec. 16, 25 Stat. 888, 893. Each Indian allottee thus gained vested rights through the Sioux land act; and the statutory language, with its provision that state law should govern inheritance, and the legislative history cited by Irving, with its emphasis on obtaining patents to protect allotments from future governmental interference (see supra note 10), make clear that the ability to pass the lands upon death was among the rights contemplated by the parties as vesting in the allottees. Furthermore, disposition of property at death has always been an integral and distinguishing factor as to types of property interests, and the power to control such disposition predominantly characterizes the "white man's ways" which the Indians were to assimilate. The individual Sioux thus had "enforceable expectations" that that power was part of the rights the received in return for relinquishment of their claims to former tribal lands. See Thurston, 586 F.2d at 1221.
By its plain terms--and there is no contention to the contrary--section 2206 does not provide for compensation to the estates of decedents for the land it declares to escheat. Accordingly, the statute is in violation of the fifth amendment, and we need not reach the further question of whether the taking was for a public purpose. We reverse the district court, declare section 2206--as written when asserted against Irving and as amended (see supra note 1) insofar as the new provision preserves the language of the old--unconstitutional, and remand for entry of appropriate relief.
The great trouble with the other treaties was that they did not give the Indians patents for their land, and now this treaty gives you papers for your land, that nobody can take away from you. [Applause.] Your taking a patent for it takes it out of Congress, and they can't make any change in it.
S.Exec.Doc. No. 51, supra, at 54 (Gen. Crook at the Rosebud Agency, Dakota, June 7, 1889).
And if you take your land in severalty a deed is given to you by the Great Father, and he holds it in trust for you for twenty-five years, so that you cannot be traded or cheated out of it, so that it will remain for you and your children and your children's children.
Id. at 73 (Gen. Warner at the Pine Ridge Agency, Dakota, June 15, 1889).
When you get a deed for your land nobody can take it away from you or your children afterwards. As long as you keep it in common as you do now you are liable to be legislated out of it just as you have been in the past.
Id. at 85 (Gen. Crook at the Pine Ridge Agency, Dakota, June 17, 1889).
The references to heirs and children in conjunction with land actually seem to be relatively sparse given the nearly 200 pages of diary. The dialogue between the Indians and the Commission centered more on whether the government would live up to obligations assumed in this and previous treaties (i.e., Treaty with the Sioux, Apr. 29, 1868, 15 Stat. 635), particularly in regard to providing education to Indian children and supplying agricultural implements and seeds and clothing and food rations. The general emphasis was that conversion to "white man's ways" and system of individual land ownership with the anticipated achievement of Indian self-sufficiency would promote the best life and the best future for the Indians' children, not that the treaty would vest specific rights to Indian lands in heirs in perpetuity: "All I can say now is, when I am laying on my death-bed, if you do not defeat this bill, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I can leave a piece of land to my children * * *." S.Exec.Doc. No. 51, supra, at 113 (American Horse at the Pine Ridge Agency, Dakota, June 21, 1889) (emphasis added).

References: § 2206
 § 2206
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 373
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 6
 art. 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.