United States v. Burnison

Background

Two California residents made wills that left property to the United States. The California Supreme Court held those gifts void under a state law provision and ordered the property distributed to the decedents’ statutory heirs. The state law (§ 27 of the California Probate Code) allows unrestricted testamentary gifts to California and its local governments and to certain public-purpose institutions, but the California court treated an unqualified gift to the United States as not fitting those categories.

Reasoning

The central question was whether California could forbid its domiciliaries from leaving unrestricted gifts to the federal government. The Court relied on earlier decisions and concluded that states retain a broad power to decide how their residents may transfer property by will. The majority explained that the state acts on the testator’s power to give and not on any independent federal right to receive, and that long-standing precedent (including United States v. Fox and related cases) supports allowing states to limit who may be beneficiaries. The Court rejected the argument that the Supremacy Clause or an equal-treatment rule required California to allow gifts to the United States on the same terms as to the state.

Real world impact

The decision means California may prevent people domiciled there from making unrestricted bequests to the federal government and may instead direct property to heirs or to state beneficiaries. It leaves in place state control over testamentary transfers, including the ability to prefer the state and to condition gifts in ways the state sees fit. It also confirms that the United States cannot automatically take under wills that state law declares invalid.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black dissented. The opinion notes his disagreement but does not set out his full reasoning in the text provided.