Babbitt v. Youpee

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Property

519 U.S. 234 (1997)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertytakingsIndian Land Consolidation Actescheatdescentdevisefractionated ownershipIndian allotments

Facts

Congress enacted § 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act to address severe fractionation of Indian allotments by causing certain small fractional interests to escheat to the tribe at the owner's death. In 1984 Congress amended the provision to use a five-year income measure, to allow devise to another existing co-owner in the same parcel, and to permit tribes to adopt approved codes governing disposition of such interests. William Youpee, an enrolled tribal member, died testate in 1990 and left several undivided interests in allotted trust lands to his children, each interest going to a single descendant. An Administrative Law Judge concluded that the devised interests fell within amended § 207 and therefore had to escheat to tribal governments rather than pass under the will.

Issue

Did the 1984 amended version of § 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act avoid the constitutional defect identified in Hodel v. Irving, or did it still effect a taking of private property without just compensation by severely restricting descent and devise of certain fractional Indian land interests?

Rule

A statute effects an unconstitutional taking when, judged under the framework applied in Hodel v. Irving and Penn Central, it retains the extraordinary character of virtually abrogating the right to pass on a certain type of property at death. Narrow revisions do not cure the defect where the statute still focuses on income rather than actual land value and still severely restricts devise in circumstances where further descent would not undermine the government's consolidation goal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts a statute for trust allotments on reservations in Montana and South Dakota. It provides that any undivided interest representing 2% or less of a parcel and producing under $100 in any one of the next five years will pass to the tribal government at death, unless the owner devises it to an existing co-owner of that same parcel. Nora Red Elk leaves each covered interest to one daughter, and each interest goes to only one devisee.

If Nora's heirs challenge the statute under the Fifth Amendment, what is the strongest basis for holding the statute unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that narrow amendments do not cure the constitutional defect where the law still severely restricts descent and devise. Allowing transfer only to existing co-owners leaves a drastically shrunken class of successors, and the statute remains especially suspect when it blocks a devise to a single heir that would not worsen fractionation.