United States v. State of California, 12
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 68 S.Ct. 20,92 L.Ed. 382,332 U.S. 804 |
| Docket Number | No. 12,O,12 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. riginal |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1947 |
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Supreme Court of the United States
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.
Page 805
It is ordered that the petition of Robert E. Lee Jordan to file the motion here to declare the stipulations null and void be denied, without prejudice to the assertion of any right he may have in a proper district court.
It is further ordered that the stipulations between the United States Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior on the one hand and the Attorney General of California on the other, which stipulations purport to bind the United States, be stricken as irrelevant to any issues now before us.
And for the purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions of this Court as stated in its opinion announced June 23, 1947, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:
1. The United States of America is now, and has been at all times pertinent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1335-72.
...founded upon 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 ......
-
Mass. Lobstermen's Ass'n v. Ross, Civil Action No. 17-406 (JEB)
...authority 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......
-
Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, S048739
...States Supreme 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 significant......
-
Cobb Coin v. UNIDENT., WRECKED & ABAN. SAIL. VESSEL, 79-8266-Civ-JLK.
...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 The "paramount rights" of the federal government, however, were thereafter ceded to the states through the Sub......
-
The Rocky Road to Energy Dominance: the Executive Branch’s Limited Authority to Modify and Revoke Withdrawals of Federal Lands From Mineral Production
...148. Offshore Petroleum History, supra note 146. 149. United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 29 (1947), opinion supplemented, 332 U.S. 804 (1947) (citing CAL. CONST. of 1849, art. XII); Robertson, supra note 145, at 494 (noting that a California statute passed in 1921 “authoriz[ed] the g......