UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA
No. 5,
Orig.
Decided June 23, 1947,
May 17, 1965, and May 15, 1978— Order and decree entered October 27, 1947 — Supplemental decree entered January 31, 1966 — Second supplemental decree entered June 13, 1977 — Third supplemental decree entered November 27, 1978
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
To carry into effect this Court’s decision of May 15, 1978, 436 U. S. 32, and for the purpose of identifying with greater particularity parts of the boundary line, as defined by the Supplemental Decree herein of January 31, 1966, 382 U. S. 448, and by the Second Supplemental Decree herein of June 13, 1977, 432 U. S. 40, between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the State of California, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court’s Supplemental Decree be, and the same is hereby, further supplemented as follows:
1. The United States has no right, title, or interest by virtue of the claim-of-right exception of § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1313, in the tidelands (that is, lands lying between the lines of mean high water and mean lower low water) and submerged lands (that is, lands lying seaward of the line of mean lower low water) within the Channel Islands National Monument, as said Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation No. 2281, 52 Stat. 1541 (Apr. 26, 1938), and enlarged by Presidential Proclamation JSTo. 2825, 63 Stat. 1258 (Feb. 9, 1949), to encompass “the areas within one nautical mile of the shoreline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands . . . In all other respects, the terms of the Supplemental Decree and of the Second Supplemental Decree apply fully to the tidelands and submerged lands within the Channel Islands National Monument.
2. The land area above the mean high-water line of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, and the land area above the mean high-water line of all islets and rocks within one nautical (geographical) mile of the coastline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands are lands as to which the State of California has no title or property interest.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree and the prior decrees of this Court or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the formulation of this decree.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.