Hodel v. Irving

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Property

PropertyTakingsIndian landDescent and devisetakingsjust compensationIndian Land Consolidation Actescheat

Facts

Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act provided that certain very small undivided fractional interests in Indian trust or restricted land could not pass by intestacy or devise, but instead would escheat to the tribe if the interest was 2% or less of the tract and had earned less than $100 in the preceding year. The appellees were heirs or devisees of Oglala Sioux decedents who died shortly after the statute took effect and who owned 41 interests subject to § 207. Without § 207, those interests would have passed to appellees or those they represented. Congress provided no compensation for the owners of interests that escheated under the statute.

Issue

Whether the original version of § 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983 effected a taking of property without just compensation by completely preventing certain small undivided interests in Indian land from passing at death by either intestacy or devise.

Rule

Although Congress has broad authority to regulate the descent and devise of Indian trust lands, a regulation may effect a taking if, under the ad hoc Penn Central inquiry, it goes too far. In particular, a total abrogation of both descent and devise of a class of property, including in circumstances where the governmental goal would not be undermined by transfer at death, cannot be upheld merely because inter vivos transfer remains available.

🔒

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 governing a class of federally supervised trust parcels held by members of the Red Mesa Nation in Arizona. If an owner dies holding an undivided interest of 1% or less that earned under $150 in the prior year, the interest cannot pass by intestacy or will and instead automatically transfers to the tribe without compensation, though the owner could have conveyed it during life.

If the statute is challenged under the Fifth Amendment, which argument is strongest?

Explanation. The majority applied an ad hoc takings analysis and treated as decisive the extraordinary character of a law that completely eliminated both descent and devise for a class of property. Even though owners retained lifetime use and inter vivos transfer, the right to pass property at death is itself a valuable stick in the bundle of rights. A strong public purpose does not by itself eliminate the need for compensation when regulation goes too far.