Wyoming v. United States
Headline: Court upholds Wyoming’s 1912 school-land lieu selection and blocks federal cancellation, protecting the State’s title and oil lease proceeds despite a later federal withdrawal and oil discoveries.
Holding: The Court ruled that Wyoming’s lawful 1912 lieu selection vested rights at the time made, and federal land officers erred by canceling it because later withdrawal and oil discoveries do not defeat that selection.
- Protects state lieu selections from later federal withdrawals.
- Lets states and lessees keep title and oil proceeds after lawful selection.
- Increases certainty for companies investing in drilling under state leases.
Summary
Background
This case began when the United States sued to claim eighty acres and the proceeds from oil taken there. The State of Wyoming had in 1912 given up a state-owned tract inside a forest reserve and selected another eighty-acre tract in its place, following the required procedures and filings. The selection sat in the General Land Office for several years. In 1914 the selected land was later included in a federal withdrawal as possible oil land. In 1915 the land commissioner refused to approve the State’s 1912 selection, and the Secretary of the Interior affirmed that refusal in 1916. Meanwhile the State leased the selected land to a private driller in 1916, and the lessee later discovered oil. The federal trial court dismissed the Government’s suit, the appeals court reversed, and the case reached this Court.
Reasoning
The Court posed the simple question whether the validity of the State’s selection should be judged by conditions when the selection was actually made or by later events. The Court held the selection must be tested by the facts existing in 1912 when the State lawfully made its choice. Acceptance under the statute created vested equitable rights for the State, which federal officers could not defeat later by citing a withdrawal or later discoveries of oil. The Court found the commissioner and the secretary erred as a matter of law in canceling the selection and therefore affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the State and the lessees.
Real world impact
The decision protects state lieu selections and the expectations of private companies that invest under state leases. Federal land officers cannot cancel a lawful selection later simply because the land was later withdrawn or later discovered to have oil. That stability lets states and private developers rely on selections made under the law.
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?