Youpee

Youpee v. Babbitt

Good Law
67 F.3d 194·95 Daily Journal DAR 11993·1995 WL 519694·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24710·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6995
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 5, 1995No. 94-35415California2,535 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beezer, J.

Congress has tried for many years to solve the problem of fractionation of Indian lands. The Supreme Court held Congress’ first effort, Section 207 of the Indian Land Consoli *196 dation Act, an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. Congress’ second effort, amended Section 207, is before us now.

The district court held that amended Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (“ILCA”), 25 Ü.S.C. § 2206, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court also enjoined the defendants from acting under Section 207 to es-cheat certain lands to Indian tribes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

I

In the late Nineteenth Century, Congress initiated an Indian land policy under which lands would be allotted to individual members of Indian tribes. General Allotment Act of 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388 . 1 The land was held in trust by the Government for a specified period of time and then descended according to the law of the state in which the land was located. After 1910, allottees were permitted to devise the allotted land by last will and testament in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.