![]() 49, 55 (1926) see also Montana, supra, at 552 ( must not infer such a conveyance unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain, or was rendered in clear and especial words, or unless the claim confirmed in terms embraces the land under the waters of the stream) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, disposals by the United States during the territorial period should not be regarded as intended unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain. United States v. That duty may not lightly be disregarded, and, as the Court rightly observes, our inquiry begin with a strong presumption against defeat of a States title. Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Recognizing this important relationship, this Court announced the principle that the United States held the lands under navigable waters in the Territories in trust for the future States that would be created. Utah Div. he ownership of land under navigable waters, it bears repeating, is an incident of sovereignty. Montana v. Decisions of this Court going back more than 150 years establish this proposition beyond a shadow of a doubt. ![]() But the existence of such intent on the part of the Executive Branch is simply not enough to defeat an incoming States title to submerged lands within its borders. The Court makes out a plausible case for the proposition that, on the day Idaho was admitted to the Union, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government had intended to retain in trust for the Coeur d∪lene Indian Tribe the submerged lands under a portion of Lake Coeur d∪lene. ![]() ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITĬhief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |