UTAH v. UNITED STATES
No. 31,
Orig.
Argued December 17, 1974
Decided February 19, 1975
Danny J. Boggs argued the cause for the United States on exceptions to the Report of the Special Master. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Johnson, and John E. Lindskold.
Richard L. Dewsnup, Special Assistant Attorney General of Utah, argued the cause for plaintiff in support of the Report of the Special Master. With him on the brief were Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General, Robert B. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General, Dállin W. Jensen and Paul E. Reimann, Assistant Attorneys General, and Clifford L. Ashton and Edward W. Clyde, Special Assistant Attorneys General.
Per Curiam and Decree.
We heard oral argument upon the exceptions to the Report of the Special Master filed by the United States. 419 U. S. 814 (1974). We overrule the exceptions and adopt, and direct the entry of, the decree proposed by the Special Master except that, as agreed by the parties, paragraph No. 1 of the proposed decree is modified in form by revising the phrasing of the opening paragraph to read as follows:
“1. Subject to any federal regulatory authority that may extend to the Great Salt Lake or its shore-lands, the United States of America, its departments and agencies, are enjoined from asserting against the State of Utah any claim of right, title and interest:”
Further, Finding of Fact No. 10 is adjusted, as agreed by the parties, by inserting 4200.8 in lieu of 4200.2, and by inserting 396,000 in lieu of 325,000.
For the purpose of giving effect to the above, the following decree is hereby entered.
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that:
“1. Subject to any federal regulatory authority that may extend to the Great Salt Lake or its shore-lands, the United States of America, its departments and agencies, are enjoined from asserting against the State of Utah any claim of right, title and interest:
“(a) to any of the exposed shorelands situated between the edge of the waters of the Great Salt Lake on June 15, 1967, and the bed of the Lake on January 4, 1896, when Utah became a State, with the exception of any lands within the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and the Weber Basin federal reclamation project;
“(b) to the natural resources and living organisms in or beneath any of the exposed shorelands of the Great Salt Lake delineated in (a) above; and “(c) to the natural resources and living organisms either within the waters of the Great Salt Lake, or extracted therefrom, as delineated in (a) above.
“2. The State of Utah is not required to pay the United States, through the Secretary of the Interior, for the exposed shorelands, including any minerals, delineated in paragraph 1 above of this decree.
“3. There remains the question whether any lands within the meander line of the Great Salt Lake (as duly surveyed prior to or in accordance with section 1 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192), and conveyed by quitclaim deed to the State of Utah, in-eluded, any federally owned uplands above the bed of the Lake on the date of statehood (January 4, 1896) which the United States still owned prior to the conveyance to Utah. In the absence of agreement between the parties disposing of the above question or of the necessity for further proceedings with respect thereto, the Special Master is directed to hold such hearings, take such evidence, and conduct such proceedings with respect to that question as he deems appropriate and, in due course, to report his recommendations to the Court.
“4. The prayer of the United States of America in its answer to the State of Utah’s Complaint that this Court 'confirm, declare and establish that the United States is the owner of all right, title and interest in all of the lands described in Section 2 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192, as amended by the Act of August 23, 1966, 80 Stat. 349, and that the State of Utah is without any right, title or interest in such lands, save for the right to have these lands conveyed to it by the United States, and to pay for them, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 3, 1966, as amended,’ is denied.”
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
As appears from p. 4 of the Special Master’s Report the parties have reserved their position with respect to this question.
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.