Asarco Incorporated v. Kadish
United States Supreme Court
490 U.S. 605 (1989)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act (Enabling Act) the federal government granted to Arizona certain parcels of land for public schools. The grant was subject to certain conditions, including that the land could only be sold or leased to the highest bidder at an advertised public auction, and only for at least an appraised value. The Enabling Act excluded mineral lands from the grant, but did not address lands on which minerals were found later. This resulted in myriad disputes about whether certain lands were covered. To resolve this, Congress passed the Jones Act, which extended the Enabling Act to mineral lands. An Arizona statute regarding leases of state mineral lands did not require advertisement or appraisal before the lands were leased. Kadish and other Arizona taxpayers (plaintiffs) brought suit against the Arizona Land Department and ASARCO Inc. and other lessees of state lands in Arizona (defendants). The plaintiffs claimed that the Arizona statute was void because it did not conform to the conditions in the Enabling Act. The defendants argued that the conditions in the Enabling Act did not apply to any mineral lands granted under the Jones Act. The trial court upheld the state statute. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, finding the statute void. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.