Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi

Supreme Court of the United States
98 L. Ed. 2d 877, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 939, 484 U.S. 469 (1988)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the equal-footing doctrine, states, upon their admission to the Union, took title to all lands lying under waters that are influenced by the ebb and flow of the tide, regardless of whether such waters are navigable in fact.

Facts:

Petitioners hold record title to 42 acres of land in southwestern Mississippi, with claims tracing back to pre-statehood Spanish land grants.
The land lies under the north branch of Bayou LaCroix and 11 small drainage streams.
These bodies of water are not navigable in fact.
The waters are, however, influenced by the tide from the Gulf of Mexico as they are adjacent and tributary to the navigable Jourdan River.
The State of Mississippi, claiming ownership of all tidally-influenced lands, issued oil and gas leases on the property at issue.

Procedural Posture:

The record title holders, petitioners, filed a quiet title suit against the State of Mississippi in the Mississippi Chancery Court (trial court).
The Chancery Court found that 140 acres of the disputed lands, including the 42 acres at issue, were held by the State in public trust.
The petitioners appealed the Chancery Court's decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling as to the 42 acres at issue, holding that the State acquired title to all lands naturally subject to tidal influence upon statehood, regardless of navigability.
The petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state, upon entering the Union, gain title under the equal-footing doctrine to lands underlying waters that are not navigable in fact but are subject to the influence of the tide?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

Yes. Upon entering the Union, states received ownership of all lands under waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. The court reaffirmed its longstanding precedents, holding that the public trust doctrine extends to all lands under tidewaters, not just those that are navigable in fact. The Court reasoned that cases like Shively v. Bowlby established a clear rule based on tidal influence for tidelands. It distinguished subsequent cases that extended the public trust to navigable freshwaters, like The Genesee Chief, arguing they expanded the doctrine to new areas, rather than contracting it by replacing the ebb-and-flow test with a navigability test for tidelands. The Court also noted the practical benefit of the ebb-and-flow rule for its uniformity, certainty, and ease of application, rejecting the petitioners' navigability-in-fact test as unworkable and inconsistent with precedent.

Dissenting - Justice O'Connor

No. The public trust should extend only to lands underlying navigable bodies of water, as the fundamental purpose of the trust is to preserve waterways for commerce and transportation. The dissent argued that the majority misinterprets broad language from prior cases that dealt with navigable waters. It contended that navigability, not tidal influence, should be the universal hallmark of the public trust, consistent with the evolution of federal admiralty jurisdiction which abandoned the ebb-and-flow test. Justice O'Connor warned that the majority's decision would disrupt the settled property expectations of landowners in all coastal states, permitting a 'belated and opportunistic' seizure of land that individuals reasonably believed was lawfully theirs for over a century.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 'ebb and flow' test as the federal default rule for determining the scope of state-owned public trust lands in tidal areas. It firmly rejects the unification of public trust doctrine under a single 'navigability' standard for both tidal and fresh waters. The ruling has significant implications for property rights in coastal states, confirming state ownership over vast areas of non-navigable wetlands and marshes, which can affect private titles and the control of valuable natural resources. While states retain the power to define the public trust more narrowly, this case establishes a broad baseline of state ownership under federal law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"