Document: 389 U.S. 155 88 S.Ct. 367 19 L.Ed.2d 383 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,v.STATE OF LOUISIANA et al. No. 9. Argued Oct. 9, 1967. Decided Dec. 4, Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1968. See 1059, 757. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Victor A. Sachse, Baton Rouge, La., defendant, State Louisiana. Houghton Brownlee, Jr., Austin, Tex., and Crawford C. Martin, Hillsboro, Texas. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 In United States v. California (the first case), 332 19, 67 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947), we held that did not own submerged lands off their coastlines had paramount rights in these lands. Some violently objected to this decision claiming they historically owned at least out a distance three geographical miles from coastlines; others asserted historical claim marine leagues coastlines. Responding objections, Congress 1953 passed Submerged Lands Act, Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 1315, which makes two entirely separate types grants land States. The is an unconditional grant allowing each coastal seaward boundary line distant its 'coast line.' second conditioned upon State's prior history. It allows those bordering on Gulf Mexico, time entry into Union beyond miles, 'as it existed such became member Union,' but with maximum limitation no may more than 'three leagues' (approximately nine miles). Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, 363 1, 80 961, 4 1025 (1960), Texas qualified conditional three-league grant. We decide, however, what line' measured. That question was specifically reserved.1 now claims that, purposes grant, coastline extends edge artificial jetties constructed by Mexico entitled lease certain lands, portions lie any part natural shoreline within jetties. itself invokes our original jurisdiction supplemental decree effect. must decide whether intended based as boundaries State, be measured many years after Union. For reasons stated reject Texas' contention hold, Act clearly says, 'such Union.' 2 relies heavily Court's case, California, 381 139, 85 1401, 14 296 (1965). Our there, dealt, statutory have here, other grant—the congressional creation new standard three-mile all While some past claimed boundaries—a explicitly rejected Court supra—Congress made clear following wording § establishing States: 'Any admitted subsequent formation has already done so extend coast * *.' 31, 1312. supra, left up define then borrowed international definition Convention Territorial Sea Contiguous Zone, (1964) 15 U.S.T. (Pt. 2) 1607, T.I.A.S. 5639, used foreign relations countries, reasoning '(t)his establishes single both administration conduct future *. Furthermore comprehensiveness provides answers lesser problems related which, absent Convention, would most troublesome.' 165, 1415, 3 Article 8 provision artificially extensions sea: 'For purpose delimiting territorial sea, outermost permanent harbour works form integral system shall regarded forming coast.' 1609. Thus, case are measurement purposes, if were under argument regarding far persuasive. ownership over or approximately land, sustained claim. supra. This allowed do providing special There critical distinction, between involved keyed particular date, date entered words 2(a) state 'to where (or Mexico) 1301. (Emphasis added.) meaning reinforced states '(n)othing section construed questioning manner prejudicing existence provided constitution laws his torical through 2(b) apply only Mexico. 5 effect take consideration situations few provide can prove excess Union, will granted them leagues. No being created, qualifies simply given same area when Unlike definitions it, here determined fixed facts. statute itself. making speaks terms line'. term omitted place word 'boundary' express qualification: required there need resort law; been amount 6 larger portion because situation, limited boundaries. combine best features order carve largest possible If wishes advantage present use defined include But expansive 1845 At obviously considered. 7 cannot ignored application allow unlike except Florida,2 expand rule governing relationships maritime nations world. domestic dispute governed reason why treaty should applied away give ever historically. believe result. hold today existed' effect, 60 days parties submit proposed decrees consideration. 9 Decree 10 CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL took case. 11 STEWART, concurring 12 3(a) 'ownership beneath navigable waters respective 30, 1311. 'boundaries' alternative Act: 13 1. 'boundaries 2. heretofore approved Congress,' 3. extended confirmed pursuant 4,' i.e., State's) *.'1 deal 2(b). upheld historic Republic Boundary 1836, Annexation Resolution 1845. described running land.' 16 contends location measuring harbor sometime seemingly anomalous result required, argues, 296. I agree. dealt issue: third 2(b).2 does definition, appear assert is, therefore, basically irrelevant. 17 My Brother HARLAN reaches urged very different reasons. He construes phrase referring land' formula applies shore conditions. Court, hand, referring, formula, line—the resulting 18 difference majority dissent thus turns narrow question: refers operative line. adopt latter construction think former plays havoc ordinary understanding legislative history persuade me meant unusual sense. course, true shift constant changing resultant line, definition. Finally, appended 'boundaries,' make semantic sense interpret general rather reasons, concur conclusions 20 HARLAN, dissenting. 21 outset, worth remarking epilogue arises reservation proceeding. right. Had paused remind fact might less ready cut loose basic things decided there. opinion, issue favor position. 22 proceeding jetties, constituting works, reckoned base calculating Act. opinions declare be, beguilingly simple process boils down syllogism: outward limit 1845, Union; time; play fixing boundary. 296, wherein similar includable California's application, said, dependent 'admission' 23 major premise majority's believe, demonstrably wrong. assumption freeze (and hence extent Act's grant) fundamentally inconsistent basis initial stage all. valid land.'1 independent neither created nor affected location. before now. 24 fully carefully interpreted earlier serve irrelevant determination Contrary impression today's language contain words. every 'title States, resources waters.'2 To language, either existing boundary, subject Atlantic Pacific Ocean, establish Act.3 must, presently anything. elsewhere Congress.'4 section, held, restrict had, one another, Congress.5 25 On existed,' 1836,6 Texas.7 As concedes, reference inherently mobile changes configuration shoreline. Hence drawn 1836 necessarily Below, presenting detail consider included determining I. 26 abundantly us acknowledged answer question. THE USE PRESENT BOUNDARIES. 27 explained, treatment lands.8 early inland waters. Pollard's Lessee Hagan, 44 212, How. 565. Following widely believed marginal sea boundaries.9 belief assumptions authoritatively tested until 1940's: first, second, them. series cases beginning 1947, destroyed Court: offshore attribute national sovereignty.10 assumption, standing decisions: 28 '* power regulate absence conflicting federal policy 29 intimate extend, define, external limits consequences extension vis persons matter bearing problem.'11 30 phase Congress' restore situation assumed method doing 'quitclaim' back 'paramount rights' found sovereignty.12 quitclaim, like led nothing validity Senator Cordon, Acting Chairman Committee Interior Insular Affairs bill's chief exponent Senate, put matter, 31 'The legal duty boundaries, lie. courts determine, several reach agreement upon. pending bill seek invade province. Whenever exactly law determined, established. 32 ' province change without consent Texas.' 99 Cong.Rec. 2620. 33 litigation expressly adopted accepted 'Act purport fix, ascertain boundary.'13 went say, 34 '(W)e find turned miles. aware throughout repeatedly republic statutes established ratified 35 'It recognized (by Congress) could established, entitle Pollard sea. right preserved.'14 36 B. WORDS 'AS THEY EXISTED.' 37 problem any, five cognizable admission approved' Congress. therefore terms, consequently subjected exacting analysis. behalf apparently referred admission;15 quite contrary, affect another ones reasoned follows: 38 bills since circumscribed suggestions made, action effectively extended, able admission. exclude possibility extravagant unilateral extensions, drafts introduced twofold test Act—boundaries apparent alter theory assure accordance theory—that 'restored' taken respect jointly State.'16 39 properly read refer 'moment admission' preadmission claims, approved.17 40 Having mean moment admission,' 184518 indirectly, acknowledgment defines boundary.19 reads, relevant part, 41 'beginning mouth Sabine river, west along Rio Grande Laws, 133. opinion.20) 42 here—where answered unless even reach: 'from taken, today, shoreline, and, last these, 'land' accretions built land? turn. II. claim, body water ambulatory. brief way: Where waterline follows gradual, (Jeffries East Omaha Land Co., 134 178, 189 (10 518, 520, 872); Banks Ogden, Wall. 57, (17 818); Jones Johnston, 150 (15 320); New Orleans Pet. 662, 717 320)) 45 changes, same, new, boundary.'21 46 least, then, suffered accretion erosion 47 next whose measure includes doubt, recognizes, incorporate structures kind ambulatory accretions. 176, built. conclusion quoted ante, 158, reflected view incorporated three-mile-boundary Act.22 48 undesirable territory unilaterally building onto argument, finding sufficient navigational servitude possessed gives plenary forbid coast-line.23 Furthermore, principle 'permanent works' 'integral system' count trifling moving 49 stipulated fall Convention's works.' words, Coast treated precise 50 appears conclude reached '(u)nlike facts.' Ante, 159-160. statement correct, follow. dealing considerable latitude interpreting it. narrower: determine defining ancient hardly justifies assuming self-explanatory. 51 Whether land,' written shore' course easy So know, assume gave thought problem. Nor sovereign 19th century occasion 52 constrained, writer guess Legislature 'would point mind, present.24 Since interpretation us, exercise involves speculation how soundest interpretation, seems me, come nation discussed itdid arise. conclusion, unanimous also obvious natural, move extended. 53 arose 1920's. Preparatory League Nations Conference Codification International Law, Hague 1930, submitted various 'how baseline breadth front ports.'25 Great Britain responded, 'In ports, passes across entrance work side side.'26 quickly British suggestion.27 Several nations, although not, Britain, expressing tense rule, said much 'should be' rule.28 All together, responses received Committee, none favored line.29 formulated 'territorial works,' commented 'agreement exists' principle.30 54 Because disagreement unrelated matters, produced waters.31 raised again, 1952, Law Commission drafted document became, 1958, 158. ILC's comment 'This article consistent positive force.'32 ILC draft presented UN Sea, M. Francois, Expert Secretariat Conference, 'States long practice universally unchallengeable.'33 discussion dissent, 8. 55 harbor-works articulated sound: ordinarily light doctrines prevailing passed, principles. means instance. substituted older, one. arisen before. unanimity 1930 strongly suggests considered conclusion. 56 fortified reading leads eminently sensible. Considerations aside, good certainly suggestion history) principles present-day govern opposite practical considerations world agree unanimously surely force here. maintaining immobile location, highly unworkable proves all;34 mass outside 'Texas.' alternative, suggested artificial, changes. Such difficulties: entire soon impossible 'natural ends 'artificial' begins. principle, almost inevitable. 57 Believing points respectfully us. Louisiana raise 'We submerged-land greater coastlines, wherever lines ultimately shown be.' U.S., 79, S.Ct., 1005. Alabama 121, 1026, 1025, 1096 Florida qualify instead A proviso definitions: '(I)n event extending Ocean Presumably 2(b), n. contend exceeds maximum. infra, 171. ,67 1311(a). 1301(b). 26—28, 977—978. 133 (1836). 36—65, 982—997. 16—18, 971—972. 16, 971. 1889; 339 699, 70 914, 94 1216; 707, 918, 1221. quotation MR. DOUGLAS, 704, 705, 916 (1950). relied involving 720, 724. cases, rulesd against holding 17—20, 24—29, 976—978. 11, 969. 24—25, 976. declared 13, 970, merely 'locating' function. Finding revealed face, 971, concluded require approval later. 16—30, 971—979. whatever valid, Gulf, partially dissented opinion; read, them, 'legally accepted' 85, 89, 1009. 108. 46—65, 487—1003. passage 36, 982. Brief Support Motion Injunctive Relief Supplemental 17, (filed July 1967). despite preceded adoption literal found, rather, afforded 'best workable definition' 'inland waters' derivatively, 161—165, 1414—1415. 177, 1422. Gray, Nature Sources 173 (1963 ed.). Doc. C.74,M.-39,1929.V, Law: Bases Discussion: Vol. II—Territorial Waters, p. (hereinafter cited 'Bases Discussion'). Id., 46. C.351(b).M.145(b).1930.V, Acts Meetings Committees; III—Minutes Second Committee: 200 'Acts Conference'). Discussion 45—47. 47. 211. 1954 I.L.C. Yearbook 155. U.N.Doc.No. A/Conf. 13/39, Official Records, Volume III: First (Territorial Zone) 142. geodetic survey indicating exists. oral sides loss suggest ascertained, typical difficulties dictate mobile.

Category: 9