| BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 20, 2004 Decided March 31, 2004 | |
| Full case name | Bedroc Limited, LLC, and Western Elite, Inc., Petitioners v. United States et al. |
| Docket no. | 02-1593 |
| Citations | 541 U.S. 176 (more) 124 S. Ct. 1587; 158 L. Ed. 2d 338 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 50 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (D. Nev. 1999); affirmed, 314 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002); cert. granted, 539 U.S. 986 (2003). |
| Holding | |
| Gravel and sand are not "valuable minerals" reserved to the U.S. Government under the Pittman Underground Water Act. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Rehnquist, joined by O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment), joined by Breyer |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Pittman Underground Water Act | |
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided sand and gravel are not "valuable minerals" reserved to the United States Government under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919. The Court sided in a 6–3 decision with the petitioner, BedRoc Limited, and reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court. BedRoc Limited had removed sand and gravel from lands obtained under the Pittman Act, and the United States, the respondent, argued those were reserved to the U.S. Government under that law.
William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, that relied on a textualist approach, and was joined by three justices. He argued sand and gravel were not considered "valuable minerals" in Nevada when the Pittman Act was passed in 1919. A concurring opinion was written by Clarence Thomas, and joined by another justice. Two justices joined John P. Stevens' dissenting opinion, that relied on legislative history and a previous decision of the Supreme Court.[1]
- ^ Lin, Albert C. "EROSIVE INTERPRETATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT'S 2003-04 TERM" (PDF). UCDavis. pp. 588 and 589. Retrieved February 26, 2017.