Court Opinion

ID: 8883112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 21:08:54.428481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:46.143807
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
We have before us the separate petitions of appellee Oranna Moosman and appellee Probst for rehearing.
Oranna asserts that the Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. § 677 et seq., as construed and applied is unconstitutional because it denies due process to the mixed-bloods in that the enforcement of the first-refusal right of the Tribe arbitrarily and capriciously discriminates against the mixed-blood group. The theory appears to be that, because of the economic situation of the mixed-bloods and because of their continuing need for federal supervision, the protective provisions of the Act are for their benefit and the use of those provisions for the benefit of the Tribe is an unreasonable classification which denies equal protection.
The record contains no evidence of their economic condition or need for continued supervision. The legislative history shows that the mixed-bloods desired termination of federal supervision. This appears in the following excerpt from House Report No. 2493, 83rd Cong. 2d Sess., 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News ’54, pp. 3355, 3356:
“The action proposed by this bill will permit the mixedbloods to progress toward termination of Federal supervision without being held back by the fullbloods who desire continuation of wardship status. According to testimony from members of the Ute Tribe, the majority of the mixedblood group feel that they are ready for a termination of Federal supervision over their property and the fullblood Indians believe that they are not ready for such action.”
Although the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to the states, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to violate due process. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884. In the case at bar the classification into the two groups was supported by the Indians, was relevant to the purposes of the legislation, and had a reasonable basis. We find no arbitrary or capricious discrimination which violates Fifth Amendment due process. See Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U.S. 329, 337-338, 63 S.Ct. 297, 87 L.Ed. 304.
Oranna says that the action of the court usurps the power of the Secretary to approve the sale and that, because the Secretary never approved the sale, the deed to Probst is ineffective. Probst argues that his deed is good because it was executed after the expiration of the ten-year period during which the Tribe had the first-refusal right. The facts are that no one asked for the approval of the Secretary and that the machinations of Probst, Elizabeth, and Oranna delayed the execution of the deed until after the ten-year period. Elizabeth determined to sell to Probst in October, 1959, and made a $9,000 profit on the sale. We are concerned with the rights of the Tribe. The failure of *499Probst, Elizabeth and Oranna to seek the approval of the Secretary and to offer the land to the Tribe cannot defeat the right of the Tribe.
Probst argues for the first time that the first-refusal provision of § 677n applies only to distributive shares and not to purchased property. The land was a tribal asset which was acquired through purchase by Elizabeth in accordance with § 6771(5). Section 677n permits a mixed-blood to dispose of his interest in tribal assets before termination of federal supervision on the condition that the Secretary approve. The section goes on to say that if a mixed-blood determines to dispose of his interest “in any of said real property” within the ten-year period he shall first offer it to the Tribe and that the requirement of such offer shall be a covenant to run with the land and shall be expressly provided in any patent issued before the expiration of that period. The regulations, 25 CFR § 243.2(g), define real property to mean “any interest in land set apart to the mixed-blood group and thereafter acquired by mixed-blood members under the terms of the Act, * * *.” We believe that the intent of § 677n was to make the first-refusal right apply to both distributive shares and to purchased tribal land. The Secretary so construed it both in the regulation and in the patent issued to Elizabeth. In our opinion the administrative construction is correct and should be followed. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367, 381, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 23 L.Ed.2d 371.
The reliance of Probst on laches is misplaced. The analogous, but inapplicable, Utah statute of limitations is three years. As we have heretofore pointed out, the events which gave the Tribe notice of the conveyance without the required offer occurred within three years before the suit was brought. In the circumstances, the burden is on the defendant to show extraordinary circumstances which require the application of the doctrine of laches. Shell v. Strong, 10 Cir., 151 F.2d 909, 911. Probst made no such showing.
The petitions for rehearing are severally denied.