Document: 397 U.S. 598 90 S.Ct. 1316 25 L.Ed.2d 600 Julia TOOAHNIPPAH (GOOMBI) et al., Petitioners,v.Walter J. HICKEL, Secretary of the Interior, al. No. 300. Argued Jan. 14, 1970. Decided April 27, Omer Luellen, Hinton, Okl., for petitioners. Richard B. Stone, Dept. Justice, Washington, D.C., respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. Houston Bus Hill, Oklahoma City, Dorita High horse. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 We granted writ to review action Court Appeals holding that decision Regional Solicitor, acting disapproving will a Comanche Indian constitutes final and unreviewable agency action. conclude such is subject judicial review.1 2 George Chahsenah, Indian, died on October 11, 1963, unmarried without surviving father, mother, brother, or sister. His estate consisted interests in three allotments situated under jurisdiction Bureau Affairs, Department Interior.2 Shortly after Chahsenah's death, value those was fixed at $34,867. On March Chahsenah had made devising bequeathing his niece, Viola Atewooftakewa Tate, her children, petitioners herein. resided with this niece considerable portion later years life. no mention daughter, but stated he leaving nothing 'heirs law * reason they have shown interest me.' 3 The beneficiaries sought it approved as required U.S.C. § 373.3 A hearing before an Examiner Interitance, Office Interior. Horse, claiming sole issue, certain nieces nephews testator contended not entitled departmental approval, arguing due effects chronic alcoholism, cirrhosis liver, diabetes, incompetent make will. Pursuant provisions 5 Act February 28, 1891, 26 Stat. 795, 371, if intestate putative would been heir law, whether parents were married. 4 found drawn form printed Interior purpose, last testament prepared attorney employed who advised concerning He also time witnesses executed affidavit attesting properly executed, decedent sound disposing mind memory undue influence, fraud, duress, coercion its execution. Horse illegitimate daughter law. concluded, however, evidence presented contestants sufficient outweigh presumption correctness attaching will, addition which unimpeached statements draftsman possessed testamentary capacity. concluded testator's failure provide unnatural since there any close relationship between two during part their lives. distribution accordance ordered. petition rehearing, contending did support Examiner's conclusion regarding decedent's competency, denied. An appeal taken officer having authority matter behalf Secretary. although supported finding met technical requirements valid instrument, 373 vested broad approve disapprove In exercising discretion, Solicitor viewed requiring him examine all circumstances determine 'approval most nearly achieve just equitable treatment thereunder heirs-at-law.' Under standard decedent, unemployed person addicted alcohol4 living income received from inherited land allotments, fulfilled obligations ceased cohabiting mother shortly Dorita's birth, thus failing 'normal home life childhood.' Reginal married adult could legally claim monies father estate, 'it inappropriate perpetuate utter disregard daughter's welfare *.' Accordingly, approval reasonable exercise discretioanry responsibility thereupon set side action, disapproved will,5 ordered entire distributed succession 6 brought against United States District Western arbitrary, capricious, abuse exceeded conferred upon 373. plaintiffs Solicitor's accord standards Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 701—706 (1964 ed., Supp. IV), over virtue either Act6 28 1361.7 allowed intervene party defendant. Both moved summary judgment, within Secretary, and, such, They evidence, arbitrary involve discretion. Although conceded neither nor 1361 review. 7 held while some question existed basis jurisdiction, 'in order effectuate purposes providing function act contemplates.'8 v. Udall, 277 F.Supp. 464, 465 n. 1. court then reasoned that, unlike June 25, 1910, 36 855, 372,9 2, 856, amended 1913, 37 678, 373, contains language conferring finality approving Indian's Judge 701 does preclude merits Congress Indians right limited only requirement be 8 powers are so defeat plainly expressed rationally based one incorrectly Secretary's authorizing disapproval thought unwise unequitable, stated: 'Congress has can more use substitute than dictate terms.' F.Supp., 468. case remanded directions distribute provisions. 9 Tenth Circuit reversed Court, unreviewable.10 10 Two basic questions here: First, review; second, available, record validity scope 11 contemplates 'except extent that—(1) statutes (2) committed discretion *' IV). Earlier Term City Chicago States, 396 162, 164, 309, 311, 24 340 (1969), relying Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140, 87 1507, 1510, 18 681 (1967), we noted 'we start aggrieved persons may obtain administrative decisions unless 'persuasive believe' purpose.'11 Section 1910 displaying congressional intention 12 respondents argue should follow course Appeals, reading into first section declares ascertaining legal heirs deceased 'final conclusive.' Cf. First Moon White Tail, 270 243, 244, 46 246, 70 L.Ed. 565 (1926). contend must read pari materia because both deal power devolution lands trust vest managerial supervisory allotted lands. 13 find unpersuasive. applies individual other properties States. Thus, coverage these sections identical. Second, composed 33 sections, virtually Many discretionary authority. For example, permits transfers beneficial ownership allottees relinquish unallotted children discretion' approves. 408. Yet others enactment cloaking actions immunity If respondents' position accepted implied difficult justify statute refusal extend conclusive' clause 3. quite scrutiny. Similar clear desired work like result section. supra. II 14 findings conclusions Inheritance capacity when unduly influenced execution, compliance prescribed formalities. This removes us except grant withhold instrument 15 view reflected statement: 16 'When purported submitted determined meets further consideration given App. 84—85. (Emphasis added.) 17 emerges clearly reliance her. From meet 'standard' considered authorized apply passing related childhood absence provision declared 'had obligation discharged lifetime terms While stressing natural ties challenged gave weight predicate determination sustained familial home, contrast, contact daughter. To sustain performed would, record, tantamount public preference testator. need here undertake spell out power, cannot assume Congress, giving respecting property hand, taking away vesting same degree disposition.12 19 reaching our necessary accept contention narrowly formal sufficiency document claimed dispositions arises statute; kind Government. absolute; allottee owner Government trustee. 348. inter vivos requires legislative history reflects concern protect improvident acts exploitation comprehensive regulations govern process dispositions. No comparable dispositions, might relating disposition uninhibited. score perhaps less reliable indicator what intended usual question. 20 Whatever s perceive purpose vests governmental official revoke rewrite rational scheme relative befriended omission not, simply subjective feeling 'just equitable.' discern concept equity him. Attocknie 261 876 (D.C.W.D.Okl.1966), grounds, 390 F.2d 636 (C.A.10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 833, 89 104, 21 104 (1968). task always easy rendered guidelines. It conceive lacking reasonably withheld even though non-Indian unrestricted pass muster conventional probate proceeding; see hold capricious. There being suggestion supplemented added factual material, reinstate judgment 22 Reversed remanded. 23 BLACK, reasons forth case, 407 394, Heffelman 378 109 Cir. 1967), affirm judgments below. HARLAN, concurring. Court's aspects: Interior's restricted federal court. proviso 373.1 I join respects; deem appropriate amplify second conclusion. facts opinion, think issue fairly characterized follows: When mind, disposition, regulations, authorize delegate concludes, general applicability, pursuant 'most heirs-at-law'? 27 As suggests, decide do various met. Nothing prevent construction, way preventing possibility bureaucratic undertaken name paternalism much commend it. petitioners' rejected, statutory network restrictions (of part) itself, suggest role limited. Nevertheless, empowered ad hoc unfair. reasoning my own parallel significant respects, helpful analysis elaborate somewhat greater detail finds background allotment system, practice administering wills. relates known property. consists primarily Indians. system established Dawes 1887, 388, eligible specific tract land. ordinarily possessory rights land, fee simple. Instead, benefit particular See 331—358. 29 long title trust, drastic alienability interests.2 fact, 348 broadly states 'conveyance' 'contract' affecting 'shall absolutely null avoid.' Moreover, crime 'any induce execute contract, deed, mortgage purporting convey Indian,' 202. regulatory scheme, securing prior someone here, sell, mortgage, give allotments.3 These substantial free making condition lands, mean foreclose requisite number witnesses, 30 What little 373—and very little—also suggests broader state judge. origins 'omnibus' bill, 855—863. bill potpourri provisions, unrelated However, time, dispose will,4 rather descend operations law.5 obscure, House Committee Report omnibus refers descriptive terms.6 31 Even Reports indication exchange floor Congressman Burke, sponsor strongly least envisioned beyond seeing instrument. Burke Cox Indiana went 32 'MR. COX Indiana. Chairman, gentleman's contained (now 373) place complete hands Commissioner Affairs? BURKE South Dakota. Affairs course, favor permitting wills them department. 34 now exists absolute will? 35 so. Then imposes Affairs. say this: frequently happened—and speak connection time—it happened four children. all. 38 'Now, human white man, happens desires permission undoubtedly O.K. it, whereas ought 39 suppose reserving compel proper 40 Not 41 MR. Or else 42 makes satisfactory commissioner put safeguard of, effect.' 45 Cong.Rec. 5812. 43 colloquy argues uphold case. According Government, shows take 'equitable considerations' account instance, otherwise reflecting government decides written different, thinking, 'fairer' 44 Without attempting define precision outer limits construed broadly. remembered primary testator, according personal predetermined dictates succession. Such essence notion appraisal—governed applicability7—that unfair inherit cuts too deeply objective grant. accomplished, explicit earlier construction response letter suggesting disinherited left memorandum, quoting statute: 'The exercised substituting effect present naming obviously objection fraud imposition, present.'8 47 statement appears consistent up For, apart us, instance called attention here.9 48 summary, framework indicate foreclosed going deciding disinherits object bounty scrutinized closely. overreaching beneficiary, fraud; inconsistent existing support, offends similar policy; disinheritance said product inadvertence—as became parent executed—the concludes disinherit where perfectly understandable decision.10 decision, erred reviewing reported 394. General Allotment 8, 794, 331 seq., provides, alia, parcels allottee, heirs, period, extension thereof. interited death. provides pertinent part: 'Any age twenty-one right, title, patent containing alienation moneys shall expiration restrictive issuance simple removal restrictions, Interior: Provided, That force until Provided further, death also, 372 Five Civilized Tribes Osage Indians.' Reference supposed alcohol addiction carries intimation saw want capacity, contrary influence. gratuitously volunteered five previous 1956 1963 Horse. discloses inquiry execution wills, health omitting supporting appear relied 702 provides: 'A suffering wrong adversely affected meaning relevant statute, thereof.' district courts original nature mandamus employee thereof perform duty owed plaintiff.' express determination. complaint alleged amount dispute excess $10,000, exclusive costs, arose laws Independently ruling, 1331. International Association Machinists AFL-CIO Central Airlines, Inc., 682, 685 83 956, 958, 67 (1963); AFL Watson, 327 582, 589—591, 66 761, 764—765, 873 (1946). whom made, hereafter dies period patent, hereinafter provided, notice hearing, rules prescribe, ascertain thereon conclusive. conflict circuits point. Compare Hayes Seaton, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 126, 128, 319, 321 (1959); Homovich Chapman, 150, 153, 191 764 (1951), 389 926, 88 287, 278 (1967); Data Processing Service Organizations Camp, 827, 184; Barlow Collins, 159, 832, 192. borne interpretation arguably 'improvident' disposition. Caucasian dated May 10, 1941, Assistant stated, 'Whatever text quoted 3, 600, opinion. At end period—not yet expired initial 25-year extended—the receive 391. Before termination authorized, remove alienation, 372; CFR 121.49. 121.9—121.20, 121.61, 121.18(b), promulgated 379. allottee's ability lease 393, 403, 415a; subchs. P Q. 856 provided: 'That years, over, executal State Oklahoma.' (25 678 (1913). H.R.Rep. 1135, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., (April 26, 1910); S.Rep.No.868, Sess. (June 17, H.R.Conf.Rep. 1727, 23, 1910). introduced referred Committee, empowering H.R. 12439, (introduced Dec. 6, 1909). committee, 24992, provision, however. suggested changes additions 12439 24992 recommendations 13, 1910. supra, examination Report, together revisions therein, reveals reference espousal idea A. Ballinger Hon. Charles H. new draft 12439. (H.R. 24992) passed Committee. Senate deleting along remainder version. S.Rep. 868, Conference readopted version, enacted identical originally House. infra. Memorandum oral argument, asked instances here. replied, 'No; able cases approved, considerations account.' Transcript Oral Argument 30. cites unreported 'will achieve(s) treatment.' opinions 'discretionary' involved minor child born creating inadvertent. Estate Oliver Maynahonah, IA—T—1 30, 1966); Kosope (Richard IA—141 141 (Oct. 1954); Frank (Oren F.) Simpkins (will 1, 1943). adult, married, completely estranged concluding uninformed irrational policy. Any regular policy offspring belief son wedlock. promulgate regulation statutes, offspring. eliminate dangers inherent determinations vague sense fair heir.

Category: 8