Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior v. Youpee (95-1595), 519 U.S. 234 (1997).
Opinion
[ Ginsburg ]
Syllabus
Dissent
[ Stevens ]
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version

No. 95-1595


BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al., PETITIONERS v. MARVIN K. YOUPEE, SR., et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[January 21, 1997]

Justice Stevens , dissenting.

by §207, provided, of course, that affected owners have adequate notice of the requirements of the law and an adequate opportunity to adjust their affairs to protect against loss. See ibid.

In my opinion, William Youpee did have such notice and opportunity. With regard to notice, the requirements of §207 are set forth in the United States Code. "Generally, a legislature need do nothing more than enact and publish the law, and afford the citizenry a reasonable opportunity to familiarize itself with its terms and to comply. . . . It is well established that persons owning property within a [jurisdiction] are charged with knowledge of relevant statutory provisions affecting the control or disposition of such property." Texaco, 454 U.S. 531-532. Unlike the landowners in Hodel, Mr. Youpee also had adequate opportunity to comply. More than six years passed from the time §207 was amended until Mr. Youpee died on October 19, 1990 (this period spans more than seven years if we count from the date §207 was originally enacted). During this time, Mr. Youpee could have realized the value of his fractional interests (approximately $1,239) in a variety of ways, including selling the property, giving it to his children as a gift, or putting it in trust for them. I assume that he failed to do so because he was not aware of the requirements of §207. This loss is unfortunate. But I believe Mr. Youpee's failure to pass on his property is the product of inadequate legal advice rather than an unconstitutional defect in the statute. [n.*]

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.


Notes

* Whether his heirs might have had a right to some relief from the author of Mr. Youpee's will if the Court had upheld the statute is not before us. Though not constitutionally required, it would certainly seem prudent for the Government or Mr. Youpee's lawyer to have notified him of §207's requirements.