United States v. Clarke

Background

This dispute involves the United States, the municipality of Anchorage (and formerly the small city of Glen Alps), and Bertha Mae Tabbytite, an American Indian who holds a restricted trust allotment. A road was built across her allotment and Anchorage later maintained the road after annexing Glen Alps. The federal statute at issue, 25 U.S.C. § 357, says allotted Indian lands "may be condemned" under state law for public purposes, and the courts below treated a landowner’s suit for compensation after a taking (called "inverse condemnation") as an allowed way to obtain payment.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether § 357 lets states or cities take allotted trust lands by physically occupying them and then defending against a landowner’s later damage suit. Looking to the statute’s plain meaning as used in 1901, the Court concluded that "condemned" refers to a formal judicial condemnation proceeding begun by the government to acquire title and pay just compensation. The majority distinguished that procedure from an owner’s after-the-fact compensation suit and held that no state or local government may rely on § 357 unless it first brings a condemnation action; the Ninth Circuit’s contrary ruling was reversed.

Real world impact

The ruling means local governments cannot rely on occupying allotted trust lands and then paying later through inverse-condemnation suits under § 357; they must initiate formal condemnation proceedings to acquire title. The decision protects the procedural rights of Indian allottees and restricts a quicker path to government possession, though the dissent urged a different result based on Alaska law and practical remedies.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun (joined by Justice White) dissented, arguing § 357 should not bar state-law inverse-condemnation claims, noting Alaska recognizes such suits and that after-the-fact compensation can be adequate.