Legal Document

519 U.S. 234117 S.Ct. 727136 L.Ed.2d 696 Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Petitioners,v.Marvin K. YOUPEE, Sr., al. No. 95-1595. Supreme Court United States Argued Dec. 2, 1996. Decided Jan. 21, 1997. Syllabus * In late Nineteenth Century, Congress initiated an Indian land program that authorized allotment communal property to individual tribal members. This resulted in extreme fractionation lands as allottees passed their undivided interests on multiple heirs through descent or devise. 1983, adopted Land Consolidation Act part reduce fractionated ownership allotted lands. Section 207 Act-the ''escheat'' provision-prohibited devise fractional constituted 2 percent less total acreage tract and earned than $100 preceding year. Instead passing heirs, described § would escheat tribe, thereby consolidating made no provision for payment compensation those who held such . Hodel v. Irving, 481 704, 107 2076, 95 668, this invalidated original version ground it effected a taking private without just compensation, violation Fifth Amendment. Id., at 716-718, S.Ct., 2083-2084. Considering, first, economic impact 207, observed provision's income-generation test might fail capture actual value land. 714, 2082. Weighing most heavily against constitutionality however, was ''extraordinary'' character Government regulation, id., 716, 2083, which amounted virtual abrogation rights devise, 716-717, While Irving pending Appeals, amended 207. Amended differs from three relevant respects: looks back five years instead one determine income produced small interest, creates rebuttable presumption stream will continue; permits otherwise escheatable persons already own interest same parcel; authorizes tribes develop codes governing disposition interests. The William Youpee, enrolled member Sioux Assiniboine Tribes, devised respondents, all them members, his several reservations Montana North Dakota. Each single descendant. Youpee's thus perpetuated existing fractionation, but did not splinter further by bequeathing any devisees. proceeding claims estate, administrative law judge Department Interior found each respondents fell within compass should therefore governments. Respondents, asserting unconstitutionality appealed order Board Appeals. Board, stating have jurisdiction consider respondents' constitutional claim, dismissed appeal. Respondents then filed suit alleging violates Just Compensation Clause District agreed with granted request declaratory injunctive relief. Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: does cure deficiency identified is guided determining whether amendments render constitutional. maintains moderate temper Government's regulation. However, narrow revisions benefit Court's ruling do warrant different announced explained Irving. five-year window rather one-year assess income-generating capacity urges alteration substantially mitigates But still trains generated land, parcel. Even if parcels may be typed de minimis, fit description. U.S., correctly comprehends rested primarily governmental regulation: ''virtua[l] abrogation'' right 2083. contends, cured fatal infirmit y when revised section allow transmission successors allotment. change rehabilitate measure. severely restricts direct shrinking drastically universe possible successors. And, observed, ''very limited group [of permissible devisees] unlikely contain lineal descendants.'' 67 F.3d 194, 199-200. Moreover, continues restrict ''even circumstances purpose sought advanced, consolidation lands, conflict property.'' 718, 2084. As acknowledges, giving effect directive heir fractionate holdings. States' arguments satisfies Constitution's demand because diminish owner's use enjoy during lifetime affect transfer death non-probate means are more persuasive today they were See third also fails bring outside reach holding Irving: Tribal apparently been developed. Pp. ___-___. 194 (C.A.9 1995), GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, dissenting opinion. James A. Feldman, Washington, DC, petitioners. Rene Martell, Wolf Point, MT, respondents. Justice GINSBURG Court. 1 case, we second time escheat-to-tribe (ILCA). 96 Stat. 2519, amended, 25 U.S.C. 2206. Specifically, address ILCA, 1984. enacted 1983 ameliorate problem attending century-old policy yielded Pub.L. 97-459, 2519. provides certain transfer-or ''escheat''-to tribe upon owner interest. 98-608, 98 3173. 668 (1987), ILCA Amendment Constitution. We now hold division property. Pursuant policy, some parcelled out Lands Indians opened non-Indians settlement. General Allotment 1887, ch. 119, 24 388. Allotted trust owned allottee subject restrictions alienation. On allottee, descended according laws State Territory located. 389. 1910, provided could June 25, 431, 36 856, codified 373. 3 ''quickly proved disastrous Indians.'' 7 07, 2079. dramatic decline amount hands. F. Cohen, Handbook Federal Law 138 (1982) (hereinafter Cohen). And allotments became increasingly fractionated, dozens owners. Lawson, Heirship: Amoeba, reprinted Hearing S. 2480 2663 before Senate Select Committee Affairs, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 77 (1984) Lawson). A number factors augmented problem: Because often died wills, many H.R.Rep. 97-908, p. 10 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982 pp. 4415, 4419-4420; Congress' acts subjected alienation impeded holders transferring interests, Lawson 78-79; state real estate taxes, Cohen 406, ordinarily serve strong disincentive retaining proliferated succeeding generation took allotments. 4 difficulties inefficiencies associated gained official attention early 1928. L. Meriam, Institute Research, Problem Administration 40-41 (1928). Governmental administration these costly, owners make productive ended 1934. Reorganization 1934, 576, 48 984, 461 seq. action left legacy place. had heir, continued generation. 1960's, congressional studies revealed approximately half ownership; over quarter six 708-709, 2079-2080 (citing Insular Heirship Survey, 86th pt. %2A (Comm. Print 1960-1961)). 5 tit. II, 2517. 2519.1 defined targeted both 6 appellees were, represented, devisees members Oglala Tribe. received 41 allotments; under 709-710, 2079-2080. tested legitimacy considering its impact, investment-backed expectations, essential 713-718, 2081-2084; see Penn Central Transp. Co. New York City, 438 104, 124, 2646, 2659, 57 631 (1978). Turning first next indicated likely interfere expectations. 715, 2082-2083. Key decision noted, pass type Ibid. Such complete upheld. II 1984, while Appeals Eighth Circuit, 96-608, 1(4), 3173.2 respects. First, considered constitutes parcel ''is incapable earning [following the] decedent's death''-as opposed year 2206(a). If prior death, ''there shall following decedent.'' Second, lieu ban ''any other tract'' 2206(b). Finally, override provisions adoption interests; approval Interior. 2206(c). ''[w]e express[ed] amended.'' 710, n. 1, 2080, 1. 8 Under case initiating plaintiffs, here, children potential Youpee. An Tribes Fort Peck Reservation Montana, Youpee testate October 1990. His various These reported, valued together $1,239. 199 1995). 9 1992, (ALJ) governments Peck, Standing Rock, Devils Lake Reservations. App. Pet. Cert. 27a-40a. ALJ's naming defendant, 857 F.Supp. 760, 766 (Mont.1994). 11 (1995). That court carefully inspected 1984 Hewing closely reasoning determined deficiencies rendered unconstitutional. particular, ''continue[d] completely abolish sticks bundle [constituting property] class landowners.'' F.3d, 200. noted ''Congress pursue options achieve interests,'' including purchase condemnation public attended regulation impede fractionation. stand, concluded, remained ''an extraordinary impermissible effect[ed] unconstitutional compensation.'' 12 petition States, certiorari, 517 ----, 116 1874, 135 171 (1996), affirm. III 13 constitutional, Irving.3 amendments, though decision, effectively anticipated concerns expressed r espects: modifications, rescue fate predecessor. regulation; latter factor weighed 14 our argument ''misses point.'' 199. ''[e]ven properly thought minimis,'' issue Bureau Affairs $2,700 $1,816, amounts ''not trivial.'' disputed order; decedent short, palpable. 15 significantly provision, stressed ''amount[ed] virtually property-the interest-to one's heirs.'' 2083; 717, 2083-2084 (''both abolished''). ''effectively abolish[ed] interests] even result construes infirmity 16 creation ever-so-slight individuals equipped receive suffice, fair reading Allowing leave only current shrinks F .3d, will, bequeathed heir. Giving directive, therefore, 17 contends lifetime, means. persuade us today. 18 establish govern approved rely new defend statute. Nor appear so time: Tr. Oral Arg. 42-43. 19 *** 20 For reasons stated, judgment 21 Affirmed. 22 dissenting. 23 Act, 2206, not, my view, testamentary I 719-720, 2085-2086, (1987) (STEVENS, concurring judgment), Government, like State, has valid removing legal impediments development estate. reason, repeatedly ''upheld power condition retention performance act period time.'' Texaco, Inc. Short, 454 516, 529, 102 781, 792, 70 738 (1982). remain convinced ample require consolidate holdings lifetimes face risk deemed abandoned.'' Hodel, 732, 2092 judgment). federal minimizing lands-and paving way property-is enough justify legislative remedy created provided, course, affected adequate notice requirements opportunity adjust affairs protect loss. ibid. opinion, opportunity. With regard notice, set forth Code. ''Generally, legislature need nothing enact publish law, afford citizenry reasonable familiarize itself terms comply It well established owning [jurisdiction] charged knowledge statutory affecting control 531-532, 793. Unlike landowners Mr. comply. More until 19, 1990 (this spans seven co unt date originally enacted). During time, realized (approximately $1,239) variety ways, selling property, gift, putting them. assume he failed aware loss unfortunate. believe failure product inadequate advice defect statute.** Accordingly, respectfully dissent. syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. enacted, provided:FC21W''No restricted tribe's reservation descedent [sic] intestacy represents per centum due escheat.'' 1990, minor here. 101-644, 301, 104 4666-4667. provides: ''(a) Escheat tribe; ''No nonmember descend reservation's recognized government, reservation, government possessing death. Where there decedent. ''(b) Escheatable ''Nothing prohibit ''(c) Adoption code ''Notwithstanding subsection (a) section, may, Secretary, adopt take precedence approve accomplish preventing interests.'' relied find dispositive, effects ''categorical'' taking, stringent analysis employed Lucas South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 1003, 112 2886, 120 798 (1992). ** Whether relief author upheld statute us. Though constitutionally required, certainly seem prudent lawyer notified him 207's requirements.

Classification Label: 3