The U.S. Supreme Court case Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Marvin K. Youpee, Sr., et al., 1996 revolved around a dispute over inheritance rights to land held in trust by the federal government for Native American individuals and tribes under The Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA). This legislation was designed to prevent further fractionation of such lands but included a provision that certain small interests would escheat (revert) back to tribal ownership upon the owner's death without regard for wills or state intestacy laws. Marvin Youpee challenged this provision after inheriting his father’s interest in several parcels of Sioux reservation land and being told it would revert back to tribal ownership when he died due its size falling below ILCA thresholds. In an unanimous decision delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court ruled that this aspect of ILCA violated Fifth Amendment protections against governmental taking without just compensation as it effectively nullified Mr.Youpee's ability to pass on his property through inheritance despite having full beneficial use during his lifetime.

In the dissenting opinion for Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Marvin K. Youpee, Sr., et al., Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority's decision that Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) was unconstitutional due to violating Fifth Amendment property rights through a "taking" without just compensation. He argued that this case did not involve a taking as it merely regulated inheritance procedures and didn't deprive owners of their property interests entirely but rather limited how they could pass on those interests after death - something he believed fell within Congress' power to regulate under its plenary authority over Indian affairs. Furthermore, he contended that even if it were considered a taking, it would be justified by public interest considerations such as preventing further fractionation of tribal lands which is in line with ILCA's purpose.