United States v. Standard Oil Company (1965)
- Docket
- 291
- Decided
- 1965-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Does the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibiting the discharge of “any refuse matter of any kind or description” into navigable waters cover commercially valuable aviation gasoline? Conclusion: Yes. Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the statute was meant to prevent pollution, and therefore must be read in a broader sense. The effect of the oil on the waterway is the same whether it was useable or not, so it should be treated the same way under the statute. The Court also held that there was legislative precedent for not creating a distinction between valuable and valueless substances deposited in waterways. Justice John M. Harlan wrote a dissent where he argued that the determination of whether or not the statute should encompass all pollutants is a decision for Congress, not the courts. He argued that the majority’s opinion misconstrued the wording of the statute, which, based on legislative history, was meant to refer to obstructions to navigation rather than pollution. He further argued that when there is doubt as to the exact meaning of a statute, the courts should err on the side of a narrow reading. Justice Hugo L. Black and Justice Potter Stewart joined in the dissent.