Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

United States v. Midwest Oil Co. - 236 U.S. 459, 35 S. Ct. 309 (1915)

Rule:

The Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 847, authorizes the President to make withdrawals of public lands and requiring a list of the same to be filed with Congress. It expressly provides that it should not be construed as a recognition, abridgment or enlargement of any asserted rights or claims initiated upon any oil or gas-bearing lands after any withdrawal of such lands made prior to the passage of this act. True, the act provides that it shall not be construed as an abridgment of asserted rights initiated in oil lands after they had been withdrawn. But it likewise provides that it shall not be considered as a "recognition of such rights." There is however nothing said indicating the slightest intent to repudiate the withdrawals already made.

Facts:

This is an action brought by plaintiff seeking to recover land and to obtain an accounting for oil alleged to have been illegally extracted. The President issued a proclamation temporarily withdrawing certain mineral lands. Plaintiff argued that the President could, by virtue of the executive power vested in him, withdraw any public land from entry or location by private parties. Defendant maintained that there was no dispensing power in the Executive and that he could not suspend a statute or withdraw from entry or location any land which Congress had affirmatively declared should be set free and open to acquisition by United States' citizens.

Issue:

Could the President have withdrawn from private acquisition what Congress had made free and open to occupation and purchase?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of district court. The Court stated that the power of the Executive to make permanent reservations included the power to make temporary withdrawals and that this withdrawal power was one that had long been recognized both in the acts of Congress and in court decisions. The acquiescence of Congress, as well as prior court decisions, led to the conclusion that the President had the power to make the withdrawal order.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates