United States v. California (1964)
- Docket
- 5-orig
- Decided
- 1964-01-01
- Public Good score
- 64 / 100
- Framers' Intent score
- 74 / 100
Summary
Question: Do rights to the undersea land off the California coast beyond the three-mile limit described in the Submerged Land Act, particularly in the case of bodies of water adjoining the ocean, belong to California or to the federal government? Conclusion: The rights belong to the federal government. In a 5-2 decision authored by Justice John M. Harlan, the Court adopted the approach used by the special master and applied the definition used by the United States in foreign relations. Justice Harlan noted that no consensus on the definition of "inland waters" seemed to exist, and thus chose to establish a reliable, tenable definition, rather than one that could be easily amended by an act of Congress. "'Freezing' the meaning of 'inland waters'…serves to fulfill the requirements of definiteness and stability which should attend any congressional grant of property rights belonging to the United States."
Case Brief
Facts
Not available in sources. The provided sources (Oyez and CourtListener) identify the matter as an original-jurisdiction case styled United States v. California with docket number 5 Orig and a listed decision date of 1976-01-01, but they do not provide a fact narrative in the supplied record. No specific dispute description, underlying events, or governmental actions are available from the provided data. Accordingly, the key operative facts cannot be verified from the sources provided. Not available in sources.
Procedural History
This matter is identified as an original proceeding in the U.S. Supreme Court (docket 5 Orig.), indicating it was filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than arriving via certiorari or appeal. Beyond that classification, the provided Oyez/CourtListener information does not include the filing history, any special master proceedings, intermediate rulings, or lower-court decisions (if any) associated with this dispute. The record also lists the case status as pending. Not available in sources.
Issue
Not available in sources (no Question Presented text provided by Oyez/CourtListener in the supplied record).
Holding
Not available in sources. Although a "DECISION DATE" is listed as 1976-01-01, the case status is provided as "pending" and no Supreme Court disposition, vote count, or opinion information is included in the supplied Oyez/CourtListener data. Therefore, no holding can be verified from the provided sources.
Rule
Not available in sources (no opinion text, syllabus, or rule statement provided in the supplied record).
Reasoning
Not available in sources. The supplied Oyez/CourtListener data does not include an opinion, reasoning, constitutional analysis, or citations to precedent for United States v. California, No. 5 Orig. Without an opinion or verified summary from the sources, the Court’s rationale cannot be stated accurately.
Significance
Not available in sources. Because the supplied record does not include a merits decision, opinion text, or verified summary of the dispute, the case’s doctrinal significance and impact cannot be accurately assessed from the sources provided.