Hodel v. Irving

Background

Three members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe sued after relatives who died in March–June 1983 lost small undivided interests in allotted tribal land under the original Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983. Section 207 said fractional interests of 2% or less that earned under $100 in the prior year would escheat — automatically transfer — to the tribe, and it provided no payment to the owners. The District Court upheld the law; the Eighth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Reasoning

The Court weighed how much the law harmed owners, what expectations owners had, and the nature of the government action. The Court accepted that Congress had a strong public purpose — reducing extreme fractionation of Indian land — but held that Section 207 went too far because it abolished both intestate succession and testamentary transfer for a class of property. That abolition removed a longstanding right to pass property to heirs and could take valuable remainder interests without compensation, so the statute amounted to an unconstitutional taking in these cases.

Real world impact

The decision prevents the original Section 207 from automatically stripping heirs of small fractional land interests without compensation. It recognizes that even small fractional interests can have real monetary value and that abolishing both inheritance routes is an extraordinary intrusion on property rights. The case leaves open other, constitutionally permissible ways to consolidate land, such as purchase, condemnation with compensation, or statutes that provide fair notice and reasonable opportunities to avoid escheat.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices wrote separately. Justices Brennan, Scalia, and others joined the judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment but argued the statute also violated due process because Congress provided no reasonable notice or grace period to allow owners to protect their interests.