## Facts

- Arizona received state lands in trust for public schools under the New Mexico–Arizona Enabling Act of 1910, which imposed conditions on sales and leases of granted lands, including appraisal, public notice, and competitive bidding to secure at least appraised value.
- Arizona’s Constitution incorporated these trust obligations for state school lands.
- Arizona enacted Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 27-234(B), governing mineral leases of state lands, which did not require advertising, appraisal, or leasing at full appraised value.
- Arizona taxpayers and a teachers association sued state officials in Arizona state court, seeking a declaration that § 27-234(B) violated the federal trust conditions and the Arizona Constitution, and requesting injunctive relief.
- ASARCO and other mineral lessees intervened as defendants to defend the statute and protect their leasing interests.
- The state trial court upheld the statute.
- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding § 27-234(B) unconstitutional and invalid as applied to nonhydrocarbon mineral leases, and remanded for entry of declaratory relief and consideration of additional relief.
- ASARCO and other lessees petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s judgment was “final” for U.S. Supreme Court review under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 despite a remand for further proceedings.
2. Whether Article III standing is satisfied on certiorari from a state-court judgment when the original state-court plaintiffs would lack federal standing, but the losing intervenor-defendants claim concrete injury from the judgment.
3. Whether Arizona’s mineral leasing statute was invalid, as applied to nonhydrocarbon minerals, for failing to comply with federal trust restrictions governing leasing of state school-trust lands.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 because the state supreme court conclusively resolved the federal issues and the remand could not alter that resolution, fitting recognized exceptions to ordinary finality requirements.
- The Court held Article III standing was satisfied because the petitioners, as state-court losers seeking federal review, alleged concrete economic and property injury from the judgment invalidating the leasing regime and impairing their lease interests.
- The Court affirmed the invalidation of § 27-234(B) as applied to nonhydrocarbon mineral leases on state trust lands because the statutory scheme did not meet the applicable federal trust conditions (including appraisal and competitive procedures) that continued to govern those leases.

## Legal Principles

- A state supreme court decision can be “final” for § 1257 purposes even with a remand, when the federal issue has been conclusively decided and remaining proceedings are effectively limited to implementing the judgment.
- In Supreme Court review of a state-court judgment, the Article III inquiry focuses on whether the party invoking federal jurisdiction (typically the state-court loser) suffers an injury in fact from the judgment; the absence of federal standing for the original state-court plaintiffs does not automatically bar review.
- Federal trust conditions imposed at statehood on school-trust lands bind state land-disposition practices; where such restrictions remain applicable to a category of leases, state statutes authorizing leases without required protections (such as appraisal and competitive mechanisms to secure full value) are invalid as inconsistent with those obligations.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction under § 1257, found Article III standing based on the lessees’ concrete injuries from the adverse state-court judgment, and affirmed that Arizona’s mineral-leasing statute was invalid as applied to nonhydrocarbon mineral leases because it failed to satisfy continuing federal trust requirements governing state school lands.


Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989)