State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas (United States, Intervener)
Headline: Interstate border clarified: Court changes prior decree to define Oklahoma–Texas boundary along the true 100th meridian, affecting land and jurisdiction in the Panhandle and adjacent northern Texas.
Holding:
- Defines Oklahoma–Texas border along the true 100th meridian.
- Clarifies which land falls in the Texas Panhandle or western Oklahoma.
- Notifies state governors and the Interior Department of the boundary change.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved the State of Oklahoma and the State of Texas, with the United States intervening, over the precise boundary line where the Texas Panhandle meets western Oklahoma. The Court had entered a decree on January 3, 1927, and later issued a rule to show cause on January 9, 1928, prompting responses from the parties. The Clark survey, made by United States commissioner John H. Clark under the Act of June 5, 1858, is central to the boundary description.
Reasoning
On March 5, 1928, the Court, after considering those responses, changed clause 1 of its earlier decree. The Court ordered that the boundary be described as the true 100th meridian of longitude west from Greenwich, running north from its intersection with the south bank of the South Fork of the Red River to where it meets Texas’s northern boundary as surveyed and marked by John H. Clark, or by a line running due east from the eastern end of the Clark survey if that end lies west of the meridian. The order itself states the revised text that must replace the prior clause.
Real world impact
The decision fixes the official language describing the state line, which affects which lands fall in Texas or Oklahoma and therefore which state exercises jurisdiction there. The clerk was directed to send copies of the order to the Governors of Texas and Oklahoma, the Secretary of the Interior, and Samuel S. Gannett, commissioner, so officials and surveyors are informed of the clarified boundary language.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?