United States v. California and California State Board of Equalization
In a dispute over the three-mile marginal belt along California's coast, the Court held that California did not own it and that the Federal Government had paramount rights and full dominion over its resources, including oil.· AI-written
507 U.S. 746 · No. 91-2003 · 1992 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Apr 26, 1993 · argued Feb 23, 1993
Judicial power · Standing to sue: private or implied cause of action
Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. United States lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that California is not the owner of the three-mile marginal belt along its coast, and the Federal Government, rather than the State, has paramount rights in and power over that belt, an incident to which is full dominion over the resources of the soil under that water area, including oil. The case was better known in its time as The Tidelands Case, although this was a misnomer because it did not involve tidelands.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1992 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Sandra O'ConnorWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- United StatesUnited States
- Respondent
- California and California State Board of EqualizationState (California)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Federal common law
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 26, 1993DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. United States lost.
- Feb 23, 1993ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
12 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: private or implied cause of action, newest first.
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.575 U.S. 320Mar 31, 2015 · 575 U.S. 320Judicial power5–45–4 band
- James Alexander, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety, et al. v. Martha Sandoval, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated532 U.S. 275Apr 24, 2001 · 532 U.S. 275Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Linda J. Blessing, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Cathy Freestone, etc., et al.520 U.S. 329Apr 21, 1997 · 520 U.S. 329Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Alan Meghrig, et al. v. KFC Western, Inc.516 U.S. 479Mar 19, 1996 · 516 U.S. 479Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Sue Suter, et al. v. Artist M., et al.503 U.S. 347Mar 25, 1992 · 503 U.S. 347Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Karahalios v. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1263489 U.S. 527Mar 6, 1989 · 489 U.S. 527Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Thompson v. Thompson, aka Clay484 U.S. 174Jan 12, 1988 · 484 U.S. 174Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Wright et al. v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority479 U.S. 418Jan 14, 1987 · 479 U.S. 418Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran et al.456 U.S. 353May 3, 1982 · 456 U.S. 353Judicial power5–45–4 band
- California et al. v. Sierra Club et al.451 U.S. 287Apr 28, 1981 · 451 U.S. 287Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu450 U.S. 754Apr 6, 1981 · 450 U.S. 754Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Cannon v. University of Chicago et al.441 U.S. 677May 14, 1979 · 441 U.S. 677Judicial power6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.