Babbitt v. Youpee
United States Supreme Court
519 U.S. 234 (1997)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Congress passed a regulation designed to improve a growing problem caused by an Indian land allotment policy that resulted in parcels of Indian land becoming fractionated, with individual parcels held by dozens of owners. The regulation provided that instead of passing in a fractionated manner to heirs, fractional interests in land would automatically escheat to the tribe. This regulation was struck down in Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987) as a taking of property without just compensation. Subsequently Congress amended the regulation (amendment) to permit the devise of a previously escheatable interest, but only to another owner of a fractional interest in the same parcel. The Youpees (plaintiffs) are the children and potential heirs of William Youpee, a member of the Sioux and Assiniboine Tribes. William died testate and devised his several interests in land to his children. Each interest was left to a single child. Under the amended regulation, the Youpees’ interests would escheat to the tribe because none of them owned another fractional interest in any of the parcels William was devising to them. The Youpees brought suit claiming a taking without just compensation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the Youpees.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
