# United States v. Louisiana (363 U.S. 1)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter

## Concurrence/Dissent

    Black

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 1
UNITED STATES, v. LOUISIANA, et al.
No. 10, Original. Argued: October 12-15, 1959. --- Decided: May 31, 1960.
ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court under Art. III, §2 of the Constitution, the United States brought suit against the States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, seeking a declaration that it is entitled to exclusive possession of, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the waters of the Gulf of Mexico more than three geographical miles seaward from the coast of each State and extending to the edge of the Continental Shelf. It also asked that the States be enjoined from interfering with the rights of the United States in that area and that they be required to account for all sums of money derived by them therefrom since June 5, 1950.
Held:
1. The Submerged Lands Act grants to each coastal State the ownership of submerged lands within three geographical miles from its coast; but no boundary in excess of three miles was fixed ipso facto for any State. Pp. 13, 20-25.
2. The Act preserved the right of each Gulf State to prove boundaries extending more than three geographical miles (but not more than three marine leagues) into the Gulf: but each State must establish the existence of such a boundary in judicial proceedings. Pp. 26-26.
3. To satisfy the requirements of the Act, a State's seaward boundary beyond three geographical miles from its coast must be one which, by virtue of congressional action, would have been legally effective to carry, as between the State and the Nation submerged land rights under the doctrine of Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan. 3 How. 212, as Congress conceived that rule to have been prior to this Court's decision in United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19. The mere existence of such a boundary prior to the time the State was admitted to the Union is not alone sufficient Pp. 24-36.
4. The fact that, in the field of foreign relations, the policy of the Executive Branch of the Government may have been to refuse to assert territorial jurisdiction more than three miles from shore would not impair the effectiveness of a State's seaward boundary fixed by Congress more than three miles from shore, so far as the purely domestic purposes of the Submerged Lands Act are concerned. Pp. 30-36.
5. Texas having claimed a maritime boundary at three marine leagues from her coast when she was an independent republic prior to admission to the Union, and this boundary having been confirmed pursuant to the Annexation Resolution of 1845, Texas is entitled under the Submerged Lands Act to a grant of three marine leagues from her coast for domestic purposes. Pp. 36-65.
6. Louisiana is entitled to submerged-land rights to a distance no greater than three geographical miles from its coastlines, wherever those lines may ultimately be shown to be. Pp. 66-79.
7. Mississippi is not entitled to rights in submerged lands lying beyond three geographical miles from its coast. Pp. 79-82.
8. Alabama is not entitled to rights in submerged lands lying beyond three geographical miles from its coast. P. 82.
9. As to the States of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, a decree will be entered (1) declaring that the United States is entitled, as against these States, to all the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico more than three geographical miles from the coast of each such State, that is, from the line of ordinary low-water mark and outer limit of inland waters, and extending seaward to the edge of the Continental Shelf; (2) declaring that none of these States is entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals and resources: (3) enjoining these States from interfering with the rights of the United States therein; (4) directing each such State appropriately to account to the United States for all sums of money derived therefrom subsequent to June 5, 1950; and (5) dismissing Alabama's cross bill.
10. As to the State of Texas, a decree will be entered (1) declaring that the State is entitled, as against the United States, to the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico to a distance of three marine leagues from Texas' coast, that is, from the line of ordinary low-water mark and outer limit of inland waters; (2) declaring that the United States is entitled, as against Texas, to no interest therein; (3) declaring that the United States is entitled, as against Texas, to all such lands, minerals and resources lying beyond that area and extending to the edge of the Continental Shelf; (4) enjoining the State from interfering with the rights of the United States therein; and (5) directing Texas appropriately to account to the United States for all sums of money derived since June 5, 1950, from the area to which the United States is declared to be entitled. P. 84.
11. Jurisdiction is retained for such further proceedings as may be necessary to effectuate the rights herein adjudicated. P. 84.
12. The motions of Louisiana and Mississippi to take depositions are denied, without prejudice to their renewal in such further proceedings as may be had in connection with matters left open by this opinion. Pp. 84-85.
13. The same disposition is made of the similar averment in Alabama's answer. P. 84, n. 142.
14. Texas' motion for similar relief and for a severance is rendered moot by the decision as to it. P. 84, n. 142.
15. The alternative motion of Louisiana, contained in its answer to the original complaint, to transfer the case as to it to the United States District Court in Louisiana is denied. P. 85, n. 143.
Solicitor General Rankin and George S. Swarth argued the cause for the United States. With them on the brief were Oscar H. Davis and John F. Davis.
Price Daniel, Governor of Texas, Will Wilson, Attorney General, James P. Hart and J. Chrys Dougherty argued the cause for the State of Texas, defendant. With them on the brief were James N. Ludlum, First Assistant Attorney General, Houghton Brownlee, Jr., James H. Rogers, Wallace B. Clift, Jr., Neal R. Allen, John Flowers and Robert T. Lewis, Assistant Attorneys General, and Robert J. Hearon, Jr.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and Victor A. Sachse, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for the State of Louisiana, defendant. With them on the brief were W. Scott Wilkinson, Edward M. Carmouche, John L. Madden and Bailey Walsh, Special Assistant Attorneys General, and Hugh M. Wilkinson and Marc Dupuy, Jr.
Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, and John H. Price, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause and filed a brief for the State of Mississippi, defendant.
Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for the State of Alabama, defendant. With him on the brief were John Patterson, Attorney General of Alabama, William G. O'Rear, Assistant Attorney General, E. K. Hanby, Special Assistant Attorney General, E. C. Boswell and Neil Metcalf.
Senator Spessard L. Holland and Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for the State of Florida, defendant. With them on the brief were J. Robert McClure, First Assistant Attorney General of Florida, and Fred M. Burns, Robert J. Kelly and Irving B. Levenson, Assistant Attorneys General.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, Will Wilson, Attorney General of Texas, Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, John Patterson, Attorney General of Alabama, and Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General of Florida, were also on a joint brief for the defendant States.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
[For opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, joined by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, see post, p. 129.]
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting in part.

## Notes

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse