October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1593
Does the 1872 Mining Law cover sand and gravel?
the sides that brought the case claim the government cannot tax their sand and gravel extraction. The government disputes this legal interpretation.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. McCrum stated sand and gravel were not locatable under the 1872 Mining Law.
Mr. Sansonetti noted applicants received free land for crops in similar cases.
chief_justice_rehnquist
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the 1872 Mining Law. the sides that brought the case argue sand and gravel fall outside its definition. The government asserts the law covers these materials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 20, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-47
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to declare sand and gravel exempt from the Mining Law.
The government wants the Court to confirm the Mining Law covers sand and gravel.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-31
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue sand and gravel were not locatable under the 1872 Mining Law.
The government argues the Mining Law applies to these common materials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-31
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked about Nevada population statistics from 1940.
The Court inquired about the historical context of the land.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-47
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether private landowners can extract sand and gravel without government fees. It defines the boundary between mining rights and general property rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-31
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-57 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-31
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.