Alabama v. Texas

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 347 U.S. 272, 74 S. Ct. 481, 98 L. Ed. 2d 689, SCDB 1953-054, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2335

Decision Date: 3/15/1954

Docket Number: ORIG

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 74 S. Ct. 481, 98 L. Ed. 2d 689, SCDB 1953-054, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2335 (1954)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1954


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 60 decisions
60
Citing decisions
4
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

13
7
17
9
2
5
6
1
1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

U.S.10
9th Cir.9
10th Cir.5
D.C. Cir.3
C.D. Cal.2
D. Alaska2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026Freedom of the Press Foundation v. Trump D.D.C.
  • 2019League of Conservation Voters v. Trump D. Alaska
  • 2017Chevron Mining Inc. v. United States 10th Cir.
  • 2016Estate of Steward v. McCay N.D. Ala.
  • 2016Juliana v. United States D. Or.
  • 2016F.E.B. Corp. v. United States 11th Cir.
  • 2011Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. Goldstene 9th Cir.
  • 2009United States v. California Department of Transportation D.N.C.
  • 2005CNMI v. United States 9th Cir.
  • 2005Northern Mariana Islands v. United States 9th Cir.
Cites 4 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

ALABAMA v. TEXAS et al.

Judges

  • The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Attorneys

  • William E. Powers, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Si Garrett, Attorney General of Alabama, Benjamin V. Cohen and Marx Leva argued the cause for complainants. On the briefs were Mr. Powers, Mr. Cohen, Thomas G. Corcoran and Eugene Gressman for the State of Rhode Island; and Mr. Garrett, and M. Roland Nachman, Jr. and Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Alabama, complainants.
  • Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California, John L. Madden, Assistant Attorney General of Louisiana, Jesse P. Luton, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General of Texas, and Oscar H. Davis argued the cause for defendants. On the briefs were Mr. Brown, William V. O’Connor, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Everett W. Mattoon, Assistant Attorney General, and George G. Grover, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of California, and Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General, Howard S. Bailey and Fred M. Burns, Assistant Attorneys General, and John D. Moriarty, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Florida; Fred S. LeBlanc, Attorney General, Mr. Madden and Bailey Walsh, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Louisiana; John Ben Shepperd, Attorney General, Robert S. Trotti, First Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Luton, and William H. Holloway and Phillip Robinson, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Texas; and Attorney General Brownell, Acting Solicitor General Stern, Assistant Attorney General Rankin, Oscar H. Davis, John F. Davis and George S. Swarth for Humphrey et al., defendants.
majority Per Curiam.

The motions for leave to file these complaints are denied. Article IV, § 3, Cl. 2, United States Constitution. United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 537: The power of Congress to dispose of any kind of property belonging to the United States “is vested in Congress without limitation.” United States v. Midwest Oil Company, 236 U. S. 459, 474: “For it must be borne in mind that Congress not only has a legislative power over the public domain, but it also exercises the powers of the proprietor therein. Congress 'may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale.’ Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 524; Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 536.” United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30: “Article 4, § 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution provides that ‘The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory and other Property belonging to the United States.’ The power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations. ‘And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine.’ ” United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 27: “We have said that the constitutional power of Congress [under Article IV, § 3, Cl. 2] is without limitation. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30.”

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.