Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 31

10 

OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S 
ENERGY GROUP, LLC 
GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

said,  “would  be  to  deprive  the  applicant  of  his  property 
without due process of law, and would be in fact an inva-
sion of the judicial branch of the government by the execu-
tive.”    169  U. S.,  at  612.    McCormick  also  pointed  to  “re-
peated  decisions”  in  similar  cases  that  themselves  do  not 
seem to rest merely on statutory grounds.  See id., at 608–
609  (citing  United  States  v.  Schurz,  102  U. S.  378  (1880), 
and  United  States  v.  American  Bell  Telephone  Co.,  128 
U. S.  315  (1888)).    And  McCormick  equated  invention 
patents  with  land  patents.    169  U. S.,  at  609.    That  is 
significant  because,  while  the  Executive  has  always  dis-
pensed  public  lands  to  homesteaders  and  other  private 
persons,  it  has  never  been  constitutionally  empowered  to 
withdraw  land  patents  from  their  recipients  (or  their 
successors-in-interest)  except  through  a  “judgment  of  a 
court.”  United  States  v.  Stone,  2  Wall.  525,  535  (1865); 
Wellness  Int’l  Network,  Ltd.  v.  Sharif,  575  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 11) (“Although 
Congress  could  authorize  executive  agencies  to  dispose  of 
public  rights  in  lands—often  by  means  of  adjudicating  a 
claimant’s  qualifications  for  a  land  grant  under  a  stat-
ute—the United States had to go to the courts if it wished 
to revoke a patent” (emphasis deleted)). 
  With  so  much  in  the  relevant  history  and  precedent 
against it, the Court invites us to look elsewhere.  Instead 
of  focusing  on  the  revocation  of  patents,  it  asks  us  to  ab-
stract the level of our inquiry and focus on their issuance.  
Because  the  job  of  issuing  invention  patents  traditionally 
belonged  to  the  Executive,  the  Court  proceeds  to  argue, 
the job of revoking them can be left there too.  Ante, at 6–
10.    But  that  doesn’t  follow.    Just  because  you  give  a  gift 
doesn’t  mean  you  forever  enjoy  the  right  to  reclaim  it.  
And, as we’ve seen, just because the Executive could issue 
an  invention (or land) patent did  not mean the  Executive 
could revoke it.  To reward those who had proven the social 
utility  of  their  work  (and  to  induce  others  to  follow  suit),