## Facts

- Congress enacted the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, which purported to convey to coastal states “the lands beneath navigable waters” and the “natural resources within such land and waters” within their borders, while reserving for the United States regulatory power related to commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs.
- Alabama sought to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction by moving for leave to file a bill of complaint challenging the Act’s constitutionality. A companion original action was brought by Rhode Island against other coastal states.
- Alabama argued the Act was unfair in its allocation of offshore lands and resources and claimed it jeopardized national interests, including national security.
- The Court previously denied the motions for leave to file the complaints, relying on Congress’s authority under Article IV, § 3, cl. 2 (the Property Clause) to dispose of property belonging to the United States.
- Alabama (and the related complainants) petitioned for rehearing. The decision reported at 347 U.S. 950 reflects the Court’s disposition of that rehearing request rather than a new merits opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should grant rehearing after denying leave to file an original bill of complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953.
2. Whether, in light of Congress’s Property Clause power to dispose of federal property interests, the Court’s refusal to allow the original action to proceed should remain unchanged.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied rehearing.
- The earlier order denying leave to file the original bills of complaint remained in effect, and the Court did not proceed to adjudicate the constitutional challenge through an original action.
- Chief Justice Warren took no part in the consideration or decision.

## Legal Principles

- Congress has broad authority under the Property Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, to dispose of and regulate property belonging to the United States, including in deciding whether and how to transfer federal property interests to states.
- The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction does not require the Court to accept every proposed original action; the Court may deny leave to file a bill of complaint at the threshold stage.
- Denial of rehearing leaves the Court’s prior disposition intact and does not create a new merits ruling; it simply declines to revisit the earlier order.

## Conclusion

In *State of Alabama v. State of Texas*, 347 U.S. 950 (1954), the Supreme Court denied Alabama’s request for rehearing following the Court’s earlier refusal to grant leave to file an original complaint challenging the Submerged Lands Act. The rehearing denial left in place the prior determination that Congress’s authority under the Property Clause permitted the statutory disposition of federal interests in submerged lands to coastal states, and the Court therefore would not entertain the challenge as an original action.


State of Alabama v. State of Texas, 347 U.S. 950 (1954)