It started with oil. Lots of it.
Back in the early 20th century, California thought it owned the ground beneath the Pacific Ocean, at least for the first three miles off the coast. They were busy handing out leases like candy to oil companies. Then the federal government stepped in and basically said, "Actually, that's ours."
The resulting Supreme Court case, United States v. California 1947, changed American property law forever. It wasn't just a boring spat over borders. It was a massive power grab that redefined what "state sovereignty" looks like in the modern era. Honestly, if you live near a coast or care about who gets to drill for energy, this 70-year-old court case is still the reason your gas prices and environmental laws look the way they do.
The Great Underwater Land Grab
California became a state in 1850. For nearly a century, everyone just assumed the "equal footing" doctrine meant that since the original thirteen colonies owned their tidelands, California owned its submerged lands too. The state was rakeing in millions in royalties.
But then the 1930s hit. Interior Secretary Harold Ickes—a man who wasn't exactly known for backing down from a fight—started eyeing those offshore oil reserves. He convinced the Truman administration that the federal government needed those resources for national defense. World War II had just proven that oil was the lifeblood of the military.
California sued. Or rather, the U.S. sued California to "quiet title" to the lands.
The state's argument was simple: we were here, we’ve been managing this, and the Constitution doesn't say the feds own the ocean floor. They pointed to cases like Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which gave states control over beds of navigable waters. It seemed like a slam dunk for the Golden State.
What the Supreme Court Actually Decided
In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court blew the state's argument out of the water. Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion, and he didn't mince words. He introduced a concept called "paramount rights."
Basically, the court ruled that because the federal government is responsible for national defense and international commerce, it has a superior claim to the three-mile belt of submerged land. It wasn't that the U.S. "owned" it in the way you own a backyard; it was that they had "paramount rights and power over" it.
📖 Related: Trump Approval Rating State Map: Why the Red-Blue Divide is Moving
This was a huge shift. It meant that even if a state technically existed next to the water, the moment you stepped into the surf and headed out a few miles, you were in federal territory. The court essentially prioritized "national interests" over "property law."
Justice Frankfurter actually dissented. He thought the majority was making things up as they went along. He argued that "paramount rights" didn't automatically mean the government owned the dirt under the water. But he lost.
Why This Made Everyone Furious
The ruling sent shockwaves through every coastal state. Texas, Louisiana, and Florida realized that if California lost its oil, they were next. And they were right. Similar cases followed, stripping those states of their offshore revenue.
It felt like a betrayal of the federalist system. States had spent decades building infrastructure and regulating these waters. Suddenly, the rug was pulled out.
But here’s where it gets weird. The Supreme Court has the final word on the Constitution, but Congress has the power to change the law. The states started a massive lobbying campaign. They wanted their land back. This led to one of the most significant pieces of maritime legislation in U.S. history: The Submerged Lands Act of 1953.
President Eisenhower signed it, effectively "giving back" the three-mile limit to the states.
Wait. So why does United States v. California 1947 still matter if Congress changed the law?
Because the principle remains. The 1947 case established that the federal government—not the states—holds the inherent right to the continental shelf beyond those narrow state borders. It’s why the feds control everything from three miles to 200 miles out today (the Exclusive Economic Zone).
👉 See also: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
The Misconception of "State Waters"
Most people think "state waters" is a permanent constitutional right. It isn't. It’s a gift from Congress.
If Congress decided tomorrow to repeal the Submerged Lands Act, the 1947 ruling would likely become the default law again. The federal government's "paramountcy" is the baseline.
You see this playing out today with offshore wind farms. When a company wants to build turbines off the coast of Martha's Vineyard or Jersey Shore, they aren't just dealing with the state. They are navigating a complex web of federal agencies—the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the EPA, and the Coast Guard.
Everything you see out there, from the fiber optic cables that give you internet to the rigs pumping crude, exists in a legal framework birthed by the 1947 fight.
Complexities of the "Three Mile" Rule
Why three miles?
Historically, it was the "cannon-shot rule." If you could hit a ship with a cannon from the shore, you owned that water. By 1947, cannons could shoot way further than three miles, but the legal tradition stuck.
In the California case, the state tried to argue that their original constitution defined their borders much further out. The Court didn't care. They viewed the ocean as a realm of international diplomacy, something only the federal government is equipped to handle.
Think about it. If California had its own foreign policy regarding the ocean, they could theoretically sign a treaty with a foreign power for a naval base just off the coast of Malibu. The Feds weren't going to let that happen.
✨ Don't miss: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
Comparing 1947 to Modern Legal Battles
We are currently seeing a "Part 2" of this saga with climate change litigation.
Several California cities are suing big oil companies in state courts, claiming that offshore drilling and carbon emissions have caused sea-level rise that damages their piers and roads. The oil companies often try to move these cases to federal court. Why? Because they want to invoke the same kind of federal "paramountcy" logic used in 1947.
They argue that because energy production and the ocean are matters of national concern, state courts shouldn't be allowed to penalize them.
Actionable Insights: What This Means for You
If you’re a property owner, a business person in the energy sector, or just a law nerd, here’s the reality you need to navigate:
- Check the Maps: If you are involved in any coastal development, realize that the "line in the sand" for state vs. federal jurisdiction is often shifting due to erosion. The 1947 case established that the federal government has the ultimate say in these shifting boundaries.
- Permitting Realities: Never assume a state permit is enough for anything that touches the water. Because of the "paramount rights" doctrine, federal oversight is almost always lurking in the background.
- Keep an Eye on the Supreme Court: The current court is very interested in "The Major Questions Doctrine" and curbing federal agency power. Some scholars wonder if the broad "paramount rights" established in 1947 might eventually be narrowed if a state ever challenges federal overreach in the Exclusive Economic Zone again.
United States v. California 1947 wasn't just about oil rigs. It was the moment the United States decided the ocean was too important to be left to the states. It’s the reason the "United" in United States reaches all the way to the horizon.
To truly understand the legal landscape of the coast, you have to look at the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 as the "patch" and the 1947 case as the "source code." The code is still there, running in the background of every maritime law we have.
If you want to dive deeper into how this affects modern offshore wind leases, look up the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's current leasing schedules. You’ll see the 1947 legacy in every line of those federal contracts.