Babbitt v. Youpee - 519 U.S. 234, 117 S. Ct. 727 (1997)

Rule:

The Supreme Court invalidated § 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 96 Stat. 2519, on the ground that it effected a taking of property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Facts:

In 1983, for the purpose of ameliorating an extreme fractionation problem attending a former federal policy that had resulted in multiple ownership of single parcels of allotted Indian lands, Congress enacted the original version of 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 USCS 2206) (the "original 207"), which required that in specified circumstances, a small interest in such a fractionated parcel had to escheat--be transferred--to an Indian tribe upon the death of the owner of the interest. However, in Hodel v Irving (1987) 481 US 704, 95 L Ed 2d 668, 107 S Ct 2076, the United States Supreme Court held that the original 207 effected a taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Meanwhile, in 1984, Congress had enacted some amendments to 207. The version which resulted (the "amended 207") (later revised on minor grounds which are not relevant) then (i) permitted a 5-year window--rather than the 1-year window of the original 207--for assessing the income-generating capacity of a fractional interest in order to determine whether the interest was subject to escheat; (ii) modified the total prohibition in the original 207 against the descent or devise of otherwise escheatable interests, by permitting such interests to be devised to persons who already owned an interest in the same parcel; and (iii) permitted tribes to establish their own codes to govern the disposition of fractional interests. In 1990, a member of the Sioux and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana died and left a will, which devised each of his several undivided interests in allotted lands to a single descendant. These interests were valued together at $ 1,239 and were determined in an administrative proceeding to be subject to escheat under the amended 207. The deceased member's children and potential heirs--after unsuccessfully attempting to raise a constitutional challenge to the amended 207 in the administrative proceeding then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, naming the Secretary of the Interior as a defendant. The complaint alleged that the amended 207 violated the Fifth Amendment's just compensation clause. The District Court agreed and granted a request for declaratory and injunctive relief. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue:

Did the amended 207 violate the Fifth Amendment’s just compensation clause?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the amended 207 did not cure the constitutional deficiency which had been identified in Hodel v Irving, where the three revisions in the amended 207 were narrow ones which had been made without the benefit of the Hodel decision. According to the Court, the amended 207 still effected a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and the narrow revisions that Congress made to the statute did not warrant a different disposition.