United States v. Louisiana
Headline: Court awards federal ownership of Gulf seabed beyond three marine leagues from Texas coast, confirms Texas rights within three geographical miles, and bars Texas from interfering with federal resource rights.
Holding: The Court decrees that the United States owns seabed and resources more than three marine leagues gulfward of Texas’s coast while Texas owns seabed within three geographical miles, and enjoins Texas from interfering.
- Grants federal control over offshore seabed more than three marine leagues.
- Confirms Texas control of seabed within three geographical miles.
- Bars Texas from interfering with federal rights to offshore resources.
Summary
Background
This order resolves which government controls the lands, minerals, and natural resources under the Gulf of Mexico off Texas. The dispute is between the United States and the State of Texas and supplements prior Court opinions from December 4, 1967, and March 3, 1969, and an earlier decree from December 12, 1960. The decree describes precise distance lines, coordinates, and the boundary beginning at the international boundary with Mexico.
Reasoning
To give effect to the Court’s earlier conclusions, the decree divides rights by measured distances from the present or future Texas coastline. The United States is declared owner of all seabed and resources more than three marine leagues gulfward, and of certain areas more than three geographical miles gulfward that lie beyond a specifically described line. Texas is declared owner of seabed and resources within three geographical miles and of areas less than three marine leagues that are landward of that line. The State is enjoined from claiming or interfering with the United States’ rights in the federal areas.
Real world impact
The decision determines who can exploit offshore minerals and other natural resources in defined Gulf areas off Texas. It sets exact measurement rules (a geographical mile = 1852 meters; a marine league = three geographical miles) and specifies coordinate and datum systems. The Court also retains jurisdiction to enforce or clarify this decree and related earlier decrees.
Dissents or concurrances
The opinion notes that the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in considering or formulating this Supplemental Decree.
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?