## Facts

- The General Mining Act of 1872 required locators of federal mineral claims to perform at least $100 of labor or improvements each year until patent, and $500 total for patent issuance.
- Historically, nonperformance of annual assessment work was treated as making a claim vulnerable to private relocation rather than forfeiture to the United States.
- The Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 moved oil shale from the location/patent system to a federal leasing system.
- The 1920 Act included a Saving Clause preserving preexisting claims that were valid on February 25, 1920 and “thereafter maintained in compliance with the laws under which initiated.”
- Multiple groups of Colorado oil shale claims, located before 1920 under the 1872 Act, were administratively canceled by the Secretary of the Interior in the early 1930s for failure to perform required annual assessment work.
- The claimants sued to compel patent issuance or to set aside the cancellations and enjoin their enforcement, relying on prior Supreme Court decisions suggesting assessment-work defaults did not forfeit claims to the Government absent third-party relocation.
- The district court and the Tenth Circuit held the Department of the Interior lacked jurisdiction to cancel the claims based on assessment-work nonperformance.

## Issues

1. Whether the Mineral Lands Leasing Act’s Saving Clause makes continued validity of pre-1920 oil shale claims contingent on ongoing compliance with the mining laws under which they were initiated, including annual assessment work.
2. Whether, under the Saving Clause, the United States is the beneficiary of invalidity for nonmaintenance, permitting the Secretary of the Interior to adjudicate and cancel such claims even without third-party relocation.
3. Whether earlier decisions limiting forfeiture to the Government precluded Interior from canceling oil shale claims for failure to substantially comply with assessment-work requirements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the Saving Clause makes the United States the beneficiary of claims that are invalid for lack of assessment work or other noncompliance.
- The Secretary of the Interior has subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether pre-1920 oil shale claims were “maintained” within the meaning of the Saving Clause, including whether adequate assessment work was performed.
- The Court limited the earlier precedents to situations where there was substantial compliance with assessment-work obligations, not prolonged or material nonmaintenance.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory saving clause preserving preexisting claims may condition preservation on continued compliance with the governing law under which the claims arose.
- Under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act’s Saving Clause, pre-1920 oil shale claims persist only if “thereafter maintained” in compliance with applicable mining-law maintenance requirements, including annual assessment work.
- When there has not been substantial compliance with assessment-work obligations, the United States may benefit from the resulting invalidity, and the Department of the Interior may adjudicate claim validity and cancel claims accordingly.
- Prior decisions treating assessment-work defaults as only creating vulnerability to private relocation do not bar federal administrative cancellation where the Saving Clause conditions continued recognition on maintenance and substantial compliance.

## Conclusion

The Court held that pre-1920 oil shale claims survive the 1920 shift to federal leasing only if the claimants continued to maintain them under the mining laws, and it confirmed Interior’s authority to determine nonmaintenance and cancel claims where assessment-work compliance was not substantial.


Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp., 400 U.S. 48 (1970)