# Brief for Fred a Seaton Secretary of the Interior in Opposition — McKenna v. Seaton > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0439%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for Fred a Seaton Secretary of the Interior in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1958 - **Citation:** 358 U.S. 835 ## Text ¢ eT Court, U.S. ee FILED ‘Sep. 4. 1958 seit Inthe gaan apes fe Cree Tee, Feensth 0 id ¥ i at > ; ee atta x ‘ :* * 4 ; ; x . } 7% 2. — ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED . ~; STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF 0. Lym CUCOIT 8 2 RA Es OS oe BRIEF: FOR FRED A. SEATON, SECRETARY. ‘OF THE INTE. * RIOR, IN OPPOSITION - | ™ 7 * : ~~ 7. LEE RANKER, \ * Solicitor General, | PERRY (W. MORTON,” .. ’ bi ‘ Asetstant Attorney aiieoal:” : , ROGER P. MARQUIS; —_ \~ FRED W. SMITH, x os Wow ttorneys,, Department of Justice, Washiogton 2 25, D. C.. ¥. . 2 > ‘ > . ° 3 INDEX ; * Pace Opinions below 1... 6... tee eee ene enes 1 ieeiaMiiae x. as co wc vsice cscs ot SOS Elen ee | Question «presented ..... 0.65555. ROT, ee ee Ee 2 Statutes and regulations mvolved 2... ........- aes Ra 3 Statement ......4 I EL Nae OU ee ed aE 2 i ee i eon nn Maknks Seaes anes 7 Conclusion . 6... 6... eee ee eee ees bak ce haaies tyes - 12 | re eee eee e eee See. OO eee 13 ; ' . : } CITATIONS + Cases: » PI MEN DOG na REM SAG DANO ANSASrS SN SNR RSet He eee . El Paso Brick Co. vo McKnight, 233 US. 250..... mets 9 Great Northern Ry. v. Sunburst; Co., 287 US. Gee. .«:.- 9 Hooper, S. J. OL L., LD. 346...2.. rer ee “Poepeeee a. Hooper, 8. J. OVD. DL B50... eee eens 4,6,9 McKay v. i ahlenmaier, 226 F.2d 35...,........... eae 10 Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, Inc., 356 U.S. 309 .... 7 Riverside-Oil Co, v. Hitchcock, 190 US. 316... 0.60... 7 Seaton v. Teras Company,-et al., Nos. 13.636, 14,637 (cc a: D.C), decided May ROIMD8. 2... ..---. i eee 10 Service '¥. Dulles, 354. US. B08... 2.066660 react ... 1.11 Enited States v. Alebama Railroad Company, 142 US. Mas eee ered os ek otek eR Oe Ne eae Peer ee Te TEE * 9 Warring v. Colpoys, 122 F:2d 642.......-2. 0-200 0b ee: 9 Williams v. United States, 138 U.S. 514 oo ae .10 Statutes. Regulations. and Rule: Act of August 2, 1954, 68 Stat, a 30 USC. Supp. VY, Sls GREP eee: | SPOw rrr rer rege re 3 “Mineral Leasing Act of ee 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437, - as nsgeye by the Act of Augus t 8. 1946. 60 Stat. 950, 30 USC. 18h, et seq. ; fare ended Section 17 (230. U.S.C, 226)... -5.........6- reer yt 3,13 Section 27 (80 U.S.C. 184. 06. e cee ee eee eee 3,13 _ 4 + Accardi, United States ex rei. 7. Shaughne “8U. 347° US. EE EEN OCC Aer Rel ee ee oe 10, 11 Barash v. Seaton, No. 14.069 (CLA.D.Co), decided April II Statutes, Regulations, and Rule—C iatiaiand , age Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands é August 43 1947, 61 Stat. 913, 30 U0 Ss. 351- 359: Section 3 (30 U.S.C. 352)....0:....... eee eae 2.13 Section 10 (90 U.S.C. BIB)... o2 coc ec te ec es cus 2,14 Circular 1624, 11 FR. 12958, 43 C.F.R., fo46 Supp. ~ et rca Wier Gere Pee eee es 3, 14 Circular 1668, 12 F.R. 8678, 43. C.F.R., 1949 ed., ii eG a ee tek he ee 3,8,.15 Cireular 1773, ) F. R. 8583, 43 C.F. R: sail Supp., : OM. oa Vi aoe awe CE a ee eoae eS a 3,8, 14 Cireular 1886, 19 F.R. 7127, 43 C F. R. 200.51 ai. erry & 13 F.R. 9567, 43 C.F.R.. 1949 ed., 192.42(a)..... eae ara 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(¢)..... GN erate 1.1 b | nthe Supreme Gourtof the Wnited States 2%. ~OcroBeR TERM, 1998 : No, 203, : | Parrick A. MCKENNA, PETITIONER é ¢. FRED .A. SEATON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND > Joun C. DEARMAS, Jk. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF CO. LUMBIA CIRCUIT sees pee BRIEF FOR FRED A. SEATON, SECRETARY ‘OF THE INTE- RIOR, IN OPPOSITION , , OPINIONS BELOW he District Court did not write an opinion, The Court of Appeals, not yet reported, are OpPLLOUs of the Is- set out iu the appendix to the petition | Pet. App. 30). s- JURISDICTION The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on Mareh 20, 1958. A petition for rehearing was denied ). 1958. The petition for a writ of certiorari -on May $ The jurisdiction of this was filed on August 5, 1998. Court is invoked under 28-U.8.C. 154(1).., (1) 9 QUESTION PRESENTED ‘ Whether the Secretary of the Interior are arbi- trartly in permitting pest- filing amendme nt of appli- cations for oil ‘and gas leases, without loss of time priority, seas to bring the application into accord With the -Seeretary ‘own view of the pertinent regula- tion, Where the application as originally tiled) con. , formed to the regulation as previously understood and cnforced by the Bureau of Land Management. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED The statutes and regulations involved are set forth in the Appendix? afra, pp. 13-1, ‘STATEMENT . ‘BTiis suit Was instituted to enjoin. the Secretary of the Tnterior frome issuing sin oil and was lease of. ae- quired lands of the United States to respondent De- Armas, on to declare ang lease issued to be void, and to compel the Secretary te issue a dease covering such aequired lands te petitioner, Section 3 oof the Act oft. August 7 1997, 61 Stat. O14 30 CUS.0. 351-359, known ais the Mineral Leasing Net Yor Aecdired Lands, App. mfra, yp. V8. authorized: the a To isstie leases. on aequired lands (with exception not here matertal ) “ander the same conditions as cottained in the leasing provisions of the mineral leasing Lrws." Seetion 10, App. cdifra. Ta aathorized the Seeretary ta thake necessary rules and regulations to carry out the pur- peses of the Net. whieh mules and regulations shall be the same as those preseribed under the mineral leasing laws to the « Ntent ‘lat they are applicable.’ : The mineral leasing laws thus made applicable to acquired lands, and pertinent te this ease. are, Sections 17 and 27 of the Mineral Leasing Aet of February 25, ——- , ” 7? 1920, as amended by the Act of August 146, GO Stat. 951, 954, 30 ULS.C. 226 and 184, App. infra, po 1. “As of the time of passage of the Mineral Leasing Act ror Aequired Lands, the publie lanes regulation pro- rinigated by the Seeretary: te implement the aereace “limitation of Section 27 of. the Mineral Leasing et, 8 CUFLR.. 1946 Supp. W2a2 Ce), App. vifra, po UA. required applications to list the publie land Jeasehold vnterests of the applicant in’ the same State with i reference to their serial numbers, tn 148, the: regu- lation was amended to require ‘ndditionally that) an applicant affirmatively state that) he owned no mere than the permitted ‘nerednwe. im RL. OaH7, 43 COB RG, 1949 ed. W420) 09). Ry oa further simendment of the publie land regulation, effective Jantury 28. 1991, the requirement that the heasehold interests of thie ape pelieaunt he listed was eliminated, and the applicant Wits reqnired foo tise a preseribed form. Whieh contained. a S statement to the effeet that he did net own leases 1p the same State covering more than the Statuterynant mum of 15360 aeres.’ “5 FUR. S585, 43 CPR. Wot Supp. W2A2C0), App. infra, pp. Velo. ~ The Gret acquired lands recuiatiens were issued on December Lo, 1947, and the revulation relating te aue therized acreage paralleled the publie lage regulation, then in effect by requiring that an “ppliednt -list In sesial number the government lease- he already held, 12 EUR. 860s. 45 CORR. 1949 ed, 2005. App. itr, yi 15. When the Secretary as of January 28,1991. re vised the public land regulation te eliminate the listing >. Vie udlowsable aegesce Wits) ier satel to 464 pSO trey the Net oa! Viouet 2. 1854 GS Stat (48.30 Casco Supp. Vi Bs Thos 3 { Sterind te this ease sites yt gw Tyeet cuit etyantieed thicat farsprant chett Pe Nrnan~ beta less tha the POO cere Mia Nail 4 , of leases already held, ne corresponding change was Inade in the aequired land regulation. However, as a practical matter, the Bureau of Land Management, after 2991, merely required of an applicant for a lease on.stich lands the statement that thie applicant’ x hold- ings did) net exeeed the statutory limit without listing the leases so owned’ This was the situation when re- — . 7 "judgment. ‘On appeal, the’ judgment of. the Histriet Court was attirmed, one judge, dissenting. The mia- jority held that -the Sec retary’s deci inion was “an. en- tirely fair, reasonable, and rational administrative ac- tient: Tt didnot reach the further point urged by. respondent: De Armas, with which the Secretary dis- avreed, that the acquired land regulation was aute- matically nullified when the public land regulation was changed, | | ARGUMENT ~° The Secretary's resolut ion of the controversy bet ween, petitioner and respondent DeArmas is clearly not sub- jeet to mandamus since the matter he was called upon. to decide unquestionably invelved an exe reise of that judgment and discretion ¢ committed by © ongress to him alone, “Neither an injunetion nor mandamus will le against an officer of the Land De partinent. te control him-in discharging. an official duty whieh requires the exercise of his. judgment au discretion.” Riverside Oil Co, *, Hitelecock, 190 ULS. O16. 2: ot. Cf. Panama Canal Cov. Grace Line, iva BAG UES. B09, 318, where mandamus Cas recognized as ‘ta remedy long restric ‘ted, . > *** in the main, to situations where ministerial duties ofa nondiscretionary nature are involved?" No such case is: present’ here. The majority helow noted a Jong line of decisions by this Court and other courts - establishing that ‘‘the primary responsibility for the solution of such questions as this, arising in the ad- ministration of the land laws, is, with the/ Secretary: ‘of the Interior, whose decision will not. be superseded lays the conrts exee pt under limited conditions.” The ini re quirement justifving judicial repudiation: of administrative action by the Secretary | was stated 3 e — by the majerity to be ‘that he is plainly: wrong” ( Pet. App. 23): ‘ It isapparent froma mere } reading of the Statement. supra, that the Secretary's ac tien in allowing DeArmas Caml others in his situation) a period in which to amend his application without loss of priority cannot be saidto he plainly wrong. Lndeed, while it is net required that “the Secretary's determination of the matter be shown ‘te he tilaindy right. the helding of the majority that “he was right, and well within his lawful authority, in holding that DeA\rmaswas the first qualified appli- iio rests not alone on regson but also on authority. There is ne question but that DeArmas met eve ry pelea auahfication for a lease. His application met the practice and the fqcukations as interprted by the Burean of Land Management at the time he filed in April 1951, whieh practice and interpretation remained the- official administrative practice and a until it was changed by the ng snd in August 1954, Jn the first Hooper decision” It would Ae unjust ad inequitable to deprive DeArmas of his rights sinc® his Application complied with an administrative practice which, whether right or wrong, mevertheless was the practice at-the time he filed. (As the Secretary ‘The Bureau's estlege ition Is understandeble. .As the majority heow noted (Pet. App. 22). the aequired lands statute contemplated povaliel procedures as nearly as possible, and a statement that the appliennt did not hold other interests exeeedhig the statutory limit, revured by the amended pubhe land reguiation (43 C.F.R. 192.42 fatto Was just fs effective to establish the statutory qualifieation a- aodetoaled htm of other interests“as required by. the unchanged eq tpred Einds re salation 43 CFR. 20050) would have been, Henee, the Bureau obviously comsidered either that the acquired land regulation no longer applied, or-that it had been impliedly amended te contorm to the publie land regul: ation. And stub- sequently. of course, the acquired lands regulation was so changed. * 9 pointed out in the second Hooper decision, in allowing amendment without loss.of priority he was but following a poliey already 4ixed in cases Where regulations were amended. The courts, of course, have long held that a change in constguction of a statute should be applied only prospectively. Great Northern Ry. v. Sanburst (o., 28T US. 358, 364; Warring Vv. Colpoys, V2 ee | 44. 645-647 (CLAD DLC.) | ef. United States Vv. Alabama Railroad Company, 142 U.S. 615, 621. “This case is not different in principle from kl Pas» “Brick Conv. MeRuight, 255 US, 250, cited by the mit- jority below (Pet. App. 24) and ignered by petitioner. There, there was no question but that the Brick Com- pany had qualified under the law fora patent to vovern- ment land, but had furnished as part of its proof an affidavit of posting not executed by an officer residing in the land district as-required by the statute, Never- theless, it was stated by this Court that sirregularities in Complying with such directory provision could he cured, and when cured, as it was, here, the patent should have beew issued 233 US. at pp. 298-259). Likewise, here There is no question -of DeArnnas being qualitied under the statuté. The case here is even str ger since, nntiPthe Secretary changed the practice in the Hooper decision, there was actially a compliance with both the watute and regulations under the prevailing adiinis- trative practice at the time he tiled. : “The petition is pitched entirely ond udge Prettyman’ — dissenting opinion. Unquestionably his view is that the reeulations must be followed, and that fi ne ease maya departure from them he excused. Weagree that, asa general proposition, regulations are mandatory, but we do not agree that, where an applieant’s applies tien complies with the reculations a= administratively « ‘interpreted at the time he files, a subsequent change in that) interpretation défeats. his rights. Contrary to Midge Pirettyman’s vie w, the Sec ‘retary Is not hog-tied” “by his regulations in cases such as this. «‘* It is obvious, “it ds'common Anowleé ‘dre, that’ in the administration of such large and varied interests as are intrusted>to the Land Department, matters not .foreseen, equities not anticipated, and whieh are the ‘refore not provided\, for sby express Statute, maty sometimes arise, and, therefore, that. the Secretary of the Interior is given that super- Intending ard super Vising power which will enable him, in the face of these unexpected contingencies, to do justice. oS ne HMiams Vv. United States, 138 U.S; 514, 524. Nor is there substance to pe titioner *s claim (Pet, 10- 15) that thedecisions of the.court below, in McKay v. Wobhlenmater, 2206 F.2d-35: Seaton veo Teras Compant ‘ . ° 7?) cteal., Nos. 13,636, 13,637, decided May 8,° 1958; and Barash vy. Seaton, Now 14, 069, decided, April 25, 1958, ind the decision here, show a conflict of views between di ferentgfariels of the court below, The three decisions just cited alb turn on their par ieular facts, “as does the instant case, atid none of, those cases presented it é 11 Here there has been no denial to petitioner of any of his administrative remedies, nor any prejudging of the ‘same. Petitioner’s sole complaimt is that he disagrees with the Secretary's decision on the merits of the con- troversy ae ‘tween petitioner and respondent. DeArmas, which. as we have shown, was for the Secretary to devide, e-and which, if is submitted, he decided correctly. Since the Nérvice and’ Accardi cases related to procedural. irregularities which could be cured by further action undp r the correct procedures, they are irrelevant here where the question is one of adjustment after the event of the relative. right&ot contesting parties Where errors have oecurred, and the result of the decision must be that one claimant loses the property. right he sought. 2, Moreover, since the regulations. for acquired and ublic lands have now been conformed, it is apparent that their former applicability does not present a ques- tion of importance for review by this Conrt. — | 3. The. lack of substance in petitioner *s claim (Pet. 16-17) that ghere was a genuine issue’ of material fact which precluded summary judgment is indicated by the - fact that neither the, majority nor dissenting opinions’ below took any note of it, Rule 56(c¢) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Pet. 5) requires that sume mary judgment he rendered **if the pleadings, deposi- . tions, and admissions on file. together with the affi- davits, ifjany. show that there is no genuine issue as ‘to any material fact * ** 9) Both the Secretary and_ respondent DeArmas in their motions expressly alleged that) no such ixsfae- existed. Counsel for respondents twice Stipudated that petitione robe allowed to file an. apeawer, but no answer. and thus no challenge of the allegitions in the motioas, was ever filed by petitioner. In, tead he tiled a similar motion for judgme ut in which ° 3 &- t ° ® ~che stated that it appeared fron’ ‘the Hleaghargs and the admissions of the @efendant and the intervenor. [respondents Seaton and De Armas] in their respec tive | metions for sunnnare Judge nt *** there is no geutiine issue as to any material fact.” That is to say, ne such @issues existed either as to responde hts” or pe titioner’s sy. Mot lola, * CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is respect fully submitted that the petition for a writ.of certiorari should be de- nied. | : . 4, Lee RANKIN, a Solicitor Gene ral. Jerry: W. Morron, Assistant Atforney General, RoGer ?. MARQE ts, - ‘ FREY W. SMITH, ; Atlorneys. SEPTEM BER, 1998, APPENDIX -- oe, ae ‘The pertinent, provision of Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. cae, a. amended, 60 Stat. 951, 30 U.S.C. 226, read as-follows: *** When the lands to be leased are not within any known geological structure of a producing oil or gas — field, the person first makin application for the lease who is qualified to hold, a lease under this Act shall be. entitled to a lease of sueh lands ee competitive bidding. * *.* ; The pertinent provision “sh wy tion 27 of the above- cited Aeto as amended, 30 U, _ PS4. reads: -o persoh, assoc oe vn 4 corporation, CXC i as herein prey ided, shall take or hold at one time oil or gas leases eXceeding:in the aggregate tifteen thousand three hundied and-sixty acres ari nted herenmder in any one State; * * * The pertinent provision of Section 3 of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Land’ of August 7 W947, 61 - Stat. 914, 30 ULSLO. 352, reads: = Except where lands: Shave heen. required lw the United States for the development of the min- eral deposits, hy forec ‘osure or otherwise for re- sale. or reported:as surplus pursuant to the pro- visions of the Surplus Property Net of Oetober 3, 1944 (50 ULS.C., see. 161) and the following), all deposits.of coal, phosphate, oil, oil simate. gas. dit. potassinm, and sulfur whieh are owned or cmmay hereafter be acquived by the’ United States ‘and: whieh are within the: lands te: juired by thi United States * * * may be leased by the Secretary under the “sate conditions as contained in the leasing provisions of the mineral leasing laws, sub- + ject to the provisions hereof. ~ * o* a 14 Séction 10 of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, 30. U.S.C, 399, reads: | 2 , The Seeretary of, the ‘Interior is authorized to * prescribe such rules and regulations as are neces- sary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act, Which rules and regulations shall be the same.as those preseribed under the mineral : leasing luws to the extent that they are applicable. ‘The relevant public land regulations joe egneny amder the Mineral Ledsing Act of February 2 , 1920, 41 Stat. 437, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 181, ¢¢ seq., are as follows: me , Cireular 1624, 11 FAR. 12958, 43 (OFLR., 1946 Supp.. 192,42 (¢), October 28, 1946. R A922. Applications for noncompetitive leases. * ' * ¥ * - * — The application must contain in substance the following: * oar * ie * ‘ - (v) A statement of the interests, direct and in- direct, held by the applicaut in oil and gas leases, and applications therefor on public lands in the + same State, idertifving by serial number the ree- ords Wherein stich interests may be fount, aa -— se e-- ri % Cireular 1773.15 FR. 8583, 43 CLPLR., 1954 Supp. 192.42(a), effective January 28, 1951 as s- 6192.42. Offer to lease, and issuance of lease, (a) To obtain a noncompetitive lease, an offer.te accept such a lease must be made on. Form, 4-114 ro, Offer and Lease Form, * * *. [ The form referred to contained a statement to the effect that the ~ ais applicant’s lease holdings did not exceed the statu- tory limit of 15,360 acres in the: same State. | The relevant regulations promulgated under the Min-- eral Leasing Act for Acquired: Lands, 61 Stat. 91.0 U.S.C. 391-399, are as follows: Ree ’ Cireular 1668, 12°F .R. S678, 4:5 BA OF oe LOAD ed., 200,5(a), December 15, 1947 | ps 6 200.5. Supplemental information required WH, leage or permit applications, and place for applica- tion-filing. Inaddition to the information required — Gy the appropriate regulations, referred to in- 6200.4, each application for a lease or permit ‘must« contain (a) a separate statement of the applicant's interests, direct and indirect, in leases or permits for similar inineral deposits, or 1m applications” therefor, on Federally-owned acquired lands in the same State, identifying by serial number the ree- ords where such interests may be fomna, * *:*. Circular 1886, 19 F.R. 7127, 48 C.F. R. 200.500).(1), November 3, 1954 ° 6 200.5. Supplemental vi formation required in offers and applications for leases and permits; place of filing. (a) Each offer of application for’ a lease or perinit must contain (1) a statement that applicant’s interest, direct or indirect, in leases,’ permits or applications, for similar minerals does not exceed a maximum chargeable acreage permit- ted to be held for that mineral in federally owned acquired lands in the dame State, * * °. ee VERNMERT PRINT oo FF f 74e acest --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0439%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.