October Term 2013 · Docket 12-1173
Does a railroad easement revert to the government when the railroad stops running?
The Brandt Trust claims full ownership of former railroad land. The United States argues the government retained a reversionary interest.
Verified source milestones
- — 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. Lechner argued the lower decision would upset property law.
He claimed the government recently created an implied reversionary interest.
Justice Scalia questioned the government's stance in the Great Northern case.
Justice Alito asked about the government's reserved interest under Section 1912.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Brandt Trust seeks full fee simple ownership of the land. The United States seeks to retain a reversionary interest in the property.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 14, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
The Brandt Trust wants full ownership of the land.
The United States wants to keep a reversionary interest.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
What each side says
The Brandt Trust argues the government created a new implied interest.
The United States argues the land was never a fee simple grant.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if the government denied the fee status in Great Northern.
Justice Alito asked if the government reserved an interest for a public highway.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-21
Why it matters
This case determines who owns former railroad corridors. It affects title to potentially one million acres of land.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
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 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-21
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 24, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
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.