Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Zschernig v. Miller

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawForeign Affairs PreemptionState Regulation of Inheritanceforeign affairspreemptioninheritanceescheatnonresident aliens

Facts

An Oregon resident died intestate in 1962, and the decedent's sole heirs were residents of East Germany. Oregon officials sought escheat of the estate under Ore. Rev. Stat. § 111.070, which conditioned inheritance by nonresident aliens on proof of reciprocal inheritance rights for Americans, the right of Americans to receive estate funds from the foreign country, and the right of the foreign heirs to receive Oregon estate proceeds without confiscation. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the heirs to take the real property under the 1923 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Germany, but denied them the personal property. The Supreme Court focused on the history and actual operation of the Oregon statute rather than reexamining Clark v. Allen's treaty construction.

Issue

Whether Oregon's alien inheritance statute, as applied, unconstitutionally intruded into the federal field of foreign affairs by requiring probate courts to evaluate foreign governments, foreign legal systems, and the credibility of foreign officials before allowing nonresident alien heirs to inherit.

Rule

A state inheritance law is invalid as applied when its history and operation show that it has more than an incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries and requires state courts to engage in inquiries and judgments about foreign governments, foreign legal systems, diplomatic representations, and possible confiscation, thereby intruding into the field of foreign affairs committed exclusively to the federal government.

🔒

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.

Nevada conditions inheritance by nonresident aliens on proof that Americans can inherit on equal terms in the heir's country, that estate funds may be transmitted to the United States, and that the heir will receive the property without confiscation. In Las Vegas probate proceedings involving heirs in a one-party state, judges routinely hear expert testimony about whether the foreign judiciary is independent, whether party officials can override statutes, and whether embassy letters are trustworthy.

Is the Nevada statute constitutional as applied in those proceedings?

Explanation. The majority held that a state inheritance law is invalid as applied when its history and operation show more than an incidental or indirect foreign effect and require probate courts to assess foreign governments, legal systems, diplomatic credibility, or confiscation. Here, Nevada courts are doing exactly the sort of inquiry the Court condemned, so the law is unconstitutional as applied even absent a specific conflicting federal statute.