United States v. State of California

Decision Date27 October 1947
Docket NumberNo. 12,O,12
CitationUnited States v. State of California, 332 U.S. 804, 68 S.Ct. 20, 92 L.Ed. 382 (1947)
PartiesUNITED STATES v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. riginal
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

Since our opinion which was announced in this case June 23, 1947, 332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, two stipulations have been filed in this Court, signed by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior of the United States on the one hand and by the Attorney General of the State of California on the other hand. In these stipulations the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior purport to renounce and disclaim for the United States Government paramount government power over certain particularly described submerged lands in the California coastal area. In such stipulations the United States Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior furthermore purport to bind the United States to agreements which purport to authorize state lessees of California coastal submerged lands to continue to occupy and exploit those lands, and which agreements also purport to authorize California under conditions set out to execute leases for other submerged coastal lands.

Robert E. Lee Jordan has filed a petition in this Court praying that he be permitted to file a motion as amicus curiae or in the alternative as an intervenor to have the foregoing stipulations and agreements set aside and declared null and void on the ground among others that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior are without authority to bind the United States by agreements which it is alleged would if valid alienate and surrender the Government's paramount power over the submerged lands concerning which the stipulations are made.

It...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
35 cases
  • United States v. Stoeco Homes, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 13, 1973
    ...mistaken assumptions. United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 39-40, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L. Ed. 1889, Opinion Supplemented, 332 U.S. 804, 68 S.Ct. 20, 92 L.Ed. 382, reh. den., 332 U.S. 787 (1947), pet. den., 334 U.S. 855, 68 S.Ct. 1517, 92 L.Ed. 1776 The defense of a denial of equal protect......
  • Mass. Lobstermen's Ass'n v. Ross
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 5, 2018
    ...to establish the Channel Islands National Monument. See 436 U.S. at 36, 98 S.Ct. 1662 (discussing United States v. California, 332 U.S. 804, 805, 68 S.Ct. 20, 92 L.Ed. 382 (1947) ). Even Plaintiffs appear not to contest that the federal government controls the territorial sea. Yet that cont......
  • Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1996
    ...Court's opinion in United States v. California (1947) 332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (supplemental opn. at 332 U.S. 804, 68 S.Ct. 20, 92 L.Ed. 382). In that case, the State of California and the United States disputed the ownership of the land, and more significantly the minerals......
  • Cobb Coin v. UNIDENT., WRECKED & ABAN. SAIL. VESSEL
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • October 2, 1981
    ...three nautical miles * * *. The State of California has no title thereto or property interest therein. United States v. California, 332 U.S. 804, 805, 68 S.Ct. 20, 21, 92 L.Ed. 382 (1947). The "paramount rights" of the federal government, however, were thereafter ceded to the states through......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles