Zschernig v. Miller

1968-01-15

Headline: State inheritance rule struck down for intruding on federal foreign policy, blocking Oregon from using probate probes to seize or withhold estates from foreign heirs, including relatives living in East Germany.

Holding: The Court held that Oregon's law forcing courts to decide whether foreign governments will return or confiscate inherited funds improperly intrudes on the federal government's control of foreign affairs and cannot be applied here.

Real World Impact:

Prevents states from probing foreign governments in probate to block foreign heirs.
Limits state use of escheat laws to withhold or redirect estate funds to the state.
Pushes disputes over foreign heirs and treaties back to federal channels.

Topics: inheritance rules, foreign relations, state versus federal power, international heirs

Summary

Background

A resident of Oregon died intestate in 1962, and his only heirs were relatives living in East Germany. Oregon officials sought to escheat the estate under a state law (§111.070) that bars nonresident aliens from taking property unless they prove three things: their country gives Americans reciprocal inheritance rights, Americans can receive payments from estates there, and foreign heirs can get proceeds without confiscation. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the heirs to take real property under a 1923 treaty but denied them the personal property under an earlier Court interpretation.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Oregon’s statute and the way probate courts used it improperly intruded on the federal government’s conduct of foreign affairs. The majority concluded the law forced state judges into detailed inquiries about foreign governments, diplomatic credibility, and possible confiscation, a field the Constitution assigns to the national government. The Court therefore reversed the state judgment and declined to reopen its earlier Clark v. Allen decision on the treaty’s personalty language. Separate opinions expressed differing paths to the same result.

Real world impact

The ruling limits state probate courts’ ability to condition inheritances on judges’ assessments of foreign governments. States may no longer apply escheat or reciprocity rules in ways that require probing foreign policy or administration of foreign law. The majority left open some treaty interpretive questions, so litigation over personal property under the 1923 treaty could continue.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart (joined by Justice Brennan) would have held the statute facially unconstitutional. Justice Harlan concurred in the result but would rely on the 1923 treaty and overrule Clark v. Allen on personalty. Justice White dissented and would have upheld the Oregon application.