Hodel v. Irving

[chrisrs]

HODEL V. IRVING
481 U.S. 704 (1937)

Facts: Congress controlled the passage of Indian lands and created a good deal of problems with a system that created interests in land that were so miniscule as to be uncontrollable and unreasonable with a large portion of Indian land being owned by fractional interests. The Legislative body then passed the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983 in an attempt to fix the problem by escheat to the tribe if the a fractional interest represented two percent or less of the total acreage and has earned less than 100 dollars in the previous year before it is due to escheat There was not any provision in the act for tender of compensation to the owners of land covered by the Act. The Plaintiff, Irving, sued for the loss of interest under the Act as being a violation of the 5th amendment in the Constitution. The DC held that the statute was constitutional, but the Appeals Court disagreed and reversed, concluding that P's heirs had a right, derivative from the original Native American allotment statute, to control the handling of their properly at death, the P had standing to invoke this right, and that violation was in regards to 5th Amendment.

Issue: The question presented is whether the original version of the “escheat” provision of the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, effected a “taking” of appellees' decedents' property without adequate compensation.

Rule: A government regulation that abolishes the ability to pass land by descent or devise is a taking under the Fifth Amendment

Holding and Disposition: O'Connor- Yes. The Government has considerable autonomy in regulating property rights that may adversely affect the owners. The Court has been unable to develop any exact formula for determining when justice and fairness require that economic injuries be compensated by the government. Rather, it has examined the taking question by engaging in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries that have identified several factors -- such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action -- that have particular significance.
The court identifies the ability to pass property on after death is a valuable right which cannot be substituted by complicated intervivos measures (revocable trusts). The court holding cedes that this may be a taking, but States have great latitude to regulate the descent and devise of property.

Take- away: Hodel modifies assumed complete governmental power to abolish rights to transmit that had never been tested; it only establishes a farther boundary, does not influence any of the normal regulations found in state law on the right to transmit.