Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hodel v. Irving

481 U.S. 704, 107 S. Ct. 2076 (1987)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Hodel v. Irving

United States Supreme Court

481 U.S. 704, 107 S. Ct. 2076 (1987)

Play video

Facts

As one of the federal allotment statutes enacted in the late 1800s dividing Indian reservations into individual land allotments, the Sioux allotment statute provided for Sioux lands to be held in trust by the United States. Consequently, the lands generally could not be sold or partitioned and passed to subsequent generations as undivided interests and became increasingly fractionated with each subsequent generation. On January 12, 1983, Congress enacted the Indian Land Consolidation Act (the Act) to address this problem. Section 207 of the Act barred the descent or devise of fractional interests in Indian land allotments that constituted 2 percent or less of the original allotment, requiring instead that the fractional interest escheat to the tribe. Three members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe—Mary Irving, Patrick Pumpkin Seed, and Eileen Bissonette (Sioux tribe members) (plaintiffs)—brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, as heirs, devisees or their representatives, against the United States Secretary of the Interior (United States) (defendant), asserting that the escheatment of 41 fractional interests under Section 207 constituted a taking of the Sioux tribe members’ property in violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States asserted that escheatment under Section 207 did not effect a taking because the property interests were de minimis or, alternatively, because the interests could have been conveyed inter vivos. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, the court held in favor of the Sioux tribe members. The United States appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O'Connor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership