[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9520-9521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4791]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Reopening Certain Escheated Estates

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior is granting a petition filed by 
the Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs with the Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (OHA) to reopen estates in which property escheated to an 
Indian tribe under the escheat provision of the Indian Land 
Consolidation Act. The petition is granted to give full effect to the 
1997 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 
234 (1997), which found the escheat provision unconstitutional, and to 
prevent manifest injustice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 19, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Baum, Director, Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, United States Department of the Interior, 4015 
Wilson Boulevard, Mail Stop 1103 BT-3, Arlington, Virginia 22203; 
telephone: (703) 235-3810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 
U.S. 234 (1997), holding that the escheat provision of the Indian Land 
Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. 2206(a), was unconstitutional. The Deputy 
Commissioner for Indian Affairs filed a Petition for Reopening All 
Estates in Which Property Escheated to an Indian Tribe Pursuant to 25 
U.S.C. 2206 (the Petition) with the OHA.
    On October 2, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior assumed 
jurisdiction over the Petition pursuant to 43 CFR 4.5(a), and issued a 
proposed order reopening the escheated estates in question. The 
proposed reopening of the estates gave the Department of the Interior 
(Department) the opportunity to redistribute the escheated interests to 
the rightful distributees without regard to the unconstitutional 
provision. The proposed order provided that all prior Departmental 
probate determinations wherein land interests were ordered escheated to 
Indian tribes under 25 U.S.C. 2206 would be reopened and modified ``to 
the extent that the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs official 
having jurisdiction over the affected land titles shall distribute any 
such escheated interests to the rightful heirs and beneficiaries 
without regard to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2206, except that prior 
determinations where an Indian tribe has paid fair market value for any 
escheated interest under 25 U.S.C. 2206 will not be reopened or 
modified.'' Recognizing that some cases would fall outside the 
parameters of the proposed order, the Secretary delegated authority to 
the Department's Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate such cases on 
an ad hoc basis pursuant to existing law.
    On October 7, 1998, the Office of the Secretary published a 
``Notice of the Secretary's Assumption of Jurisdiction Over Probate of 
Estates in Which Property Escheated to an Indian Tribe Pursuant to 25 
U.S.C. 2206 and Opportunity to Comment'' in the Federal Register. The 
Notice gave interested parties until November 2, 1998, to submit 
comments to the Director of OHA.

Discussion of Interested Party Comments

    The OHA Director received seven timely comments in response to the 
published Notice. One additional comment was received after November 2, 
1998. None of the comments received objected to the proposed reopening 
of the escheated estates or suggested any changes to the language in 
the Secretary's proposed order. The comments are summarized below and 
responses follow.
    Comment: Four comments expressed concern about the administrative 
burdens and costs associated with the complicated task of reopening the 
case, and suggested that the tribes should not bear the burden and 
expense of correcting a problem they did not create.
    Response: The Department expects that the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) will bear the majority of administrative burdens and costs 
associated with the reopening of these estates. Direct cost to the 
tribes should be minimal. The Department will request a supplemental 
appropriation for the costs incurred by the BIA in reopening the 
estates.
    Comment: Four comments suggested that no tribe should be held 
liable for reimbursing lease income and interest that BIA sent the 
tribe from the escheated interests.
    Response: The heirs and beneficiaries are entitled to the money 
that they lost while the tribes held their interests under the escheat 
provision. The Supreme Court's decision makes it clear that the tribes 
were not entitled to that money. Furthermore, many tribes escrowed this 
money in anticipation of a reopening of the escheated estates.
    Comment: One Tribe requested that the option of government purchase 
of escheated interests on the Quinault Reservation not be considered.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of the current issue 
and does not affect this decision.
    Comment: One Tribe suggested that Congress should appropriate funds 
for the process of reopening the estates as well as for the tribes to 
buy the fractionated interests from any heirs who may not want to keep 
their interest, but seek a fair market value for them.
    Response: The Department will be requesting supplemental 
appropriations for costs incurred by the BIA in reopening the escheated 
interests. Congress has provided a $5 million appropriation for a pilot 
project to enable tribes to purchase fractional interests from willing 
sellers. However, there is no program at present that would apply 
nationally.
    Comment: One Tribe commented that it was incorrectly listed in the 
Federal Register Notice of October 7, 1998, as the ``Stockbridge-Munsee 
Community of Minnesota'' and their correct name is the ``Stockbridge-
Munsee Community of Wisconsin.'' The Tribe also said it had no record 
of land escheating to it under 25 U.S.C. 2206, and asked to be told if 
the BIA or the Department is aware of any property that escheated to 
this Tribe under Act.
    Response: BIA is looking into this matter and will advise the 
Tribe.
    Comment: One Tribe expressed concerns about time delays or 
reallocation of resources affecting ongoing fee-to-trust conveyances by 
tribal governments or tribal members, and funding to participate in the 
Indian Land Consolidation Project proposed by BIA. The Tribe has 
applied to participate in this pilot project and seeks funding at the 
earliest possible date for tribes with escheated lands that have 
already applied for the pilot to carry out their proposed projects.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of the current issue 
and does not affect this decision.

Department's Determination

    The Secretary of the Interior has determined the following:
    1. The Supreme Court of the United States has found the escheat 
provision

[[Page 9521]]

of the Indian Land Consolidation Act to be unconstitutional.
    2. Reopening all estates in which property escheated to an Indian 
tribe under the escheat provision of the Indian Land Consolidation Act:
    a. Allows correction of the prior distribution of assets;
    b. Is in the public interest;
    c. Furthers the Department's trust responsibility; and
    d. Prevents manifest injustice.
    3. For the reasons given above, all estates in which property 
escheated to an Indian tribe under the escheat provision of the Indian 
Land Consolidation Act are reopened. The Secretary will distribute 
interests in these estates to the rightful distributees in accordance 
with Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997).
    4. The Bureau of Indian Affairs will bear the majority of 
administrative costs associated with this action.
    5. The Department will ask Congress for a supplemental 
appropriation for this project.

Text of the Secretary's Order

    The text of the Order signed by the Secretary on February 19, 1999, 
reads as follows:

United States Department of the Interior

Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20240

    In the matter of all estates in which property escheated to an 
Indian Tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2206.

Order

    On January 21, 1997, the United States Supreme Court issued a 
decision in Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997), in which it 
essentially held that the ``escheat provision'' of the Indian Land 
Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. 2206, as amended, is unconstitutional. On 
October 2, 1998, the Deputy Commissioner for Indian Affairs filed a 
Petition for Reopening All Estates in Which Property Escheated to an 
Indian Tribe Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2206 (the ``Petition'') with the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals. By Order the same day, I took 
jurisdiction of the Petition and solicited comments on it and a 
Proposed Order for Reopening Escheated Estates. Both the Petition and 
Proposed Order were served upon the affected tribes.
    To give full effect to the Supreme Court's holding in Youpee and to 
further the Department of the Interior's trust responsibility to the 
Indian people, I find that the public interest would be furthered by 
applying the Youpee decision retroactively to prior Departmental 
probate determinations consistent with the procedures set forth more 
fully below. I further determine that reopening these estates will 
prevent manifest injustice and that a reasonable possibility exists for 
correction of prior distribution of assets which occurred in reliance 
on the unconstitutional statute.
    In furtherance of my Order dated October 2, 1998 in which I assumed 
jurisdiction to decide the Petition pursuant to 43 CFR Sec. 4.5(a), and 
further by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by Section 1 
of the Act of June 25, 1910, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 372 (1970), and 
other applicable statutes, it is hereby ordered:
    The Petition for Reopening All Estates in Which Property Escheated 
to an Indian Tribe Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2206 is hereby granted. All 
prior Departmental probate determinations wherein land interests were 
Ordered to be escheated to Indian tribes pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2206 are 
hereby reopened. The determinations made therein are modified to the 
extent that the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs official having 
jurisdiction over the affected land titles shall distribute any such 
escheated interests to the rightful heirs and beneficiaries without 
regard to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2206, except that prior 
determinations where an Indian tribe has paid fair market value for any 
escheated interest under 25 U.S.C. 2206 will not be reopened or 
modified.
    It is recognized that there will be cases that do not fall within 
the parameters of this Order and which will need to be treated on an ad 
hoc basis, such as cases where there was no determination of heirs, 
cases of will construction, and any other type of miscellaneous case 
where Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel are uncertain as to how to 
proceed. The Bureau of Indian Affairs shall refer such cases to the 
respective Administrative Law Judge for adjudication. To the extent not 
already delegated, I hereby delegate authority to the Administrative 
Law Judges to assume jurisdiction over, and enter determinations in, 
those cases pursuant to existing law.
    The Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, or his delegate will 
have jurisdiction to decide any objection to the implementation of this 
Order. Any objection to implementation of this Order shall be made in 
writing to: Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department 
of the Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1111/BT-3, Arlington, VA 
22203.

    Dated the 19th day of February, 1999.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.

Edward B. Cohen,
Deputy Solicitor.
[FR Doc. 99-4791 Filed 2-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-79-M