## Facts

- On June 30, 1864, Congress enacted a statute granting Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to the State of California.
- The grant required the lands be held “for public use, resort, and recreation” and be “inalienable for all time,” except that limited leases (not exceeding ten years) could be made, with proceeds applied to preservation and access.
- The Act contemplated that the Yosemite Valley boundaries would be established through a survey and official plat, and that management would be vested in the governor and commissioners appointed to administer the federal conditions.
- California accepted the federal grant “upon the conditions, reservations, and stipulations” in the Act and created a board of commissioners with authority to manage, improve, preserve, and regulate use of the premises.
- James M. Hutchings had occupied and improved land within Yosemite Valley, operating accommodations for visitors and claiming a right to acquire title under federal pre-emption laws based on settlement and improvement.
- Hutchings refused to vacate and also refused to take a lease or otherwise recognize the commissioners’ authority over the premises under the grant.
- A commissioner, Low, acting under California’s grant-management authority, sought possession against Hutchings in an ejectment-type action.
- The California district court ruled for Hutchings; the Supreme Court of California reversed and ordered judgment for the commissioner for possession.
- Hutchings brought a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his pre-emption-based claim limited Congress’s power to convey the land to California.

## Issues

1. Whether settlement and improvement of federal public land, coupled with an intent to claim under the pre-emption laws, creates a vested interest that prevents Congress from granting the land to another.
2. Whether Congress’s power to dispose of public lands remains until a pre-emption claimant completes all statutory prerequisites, including payment and entry.
3. Whether the 1864 Act validly transferred title of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to California subject to the statute’s public-use and inalienability conditions, defeating Hutchings’s asserted claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court (Justice Field) affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California for the state commissioner (Low) and against Hutchings.
- The Court held that mere settlement, improvement, and a declared intention to preempt do not create a vested property right against the United States.
- The Court held that Congress’s constitutional power over the public lands ceases, in the pre-emption setting, only when the settler has performed all required preliminary acts, including payment of the purchase price and formal entry.
- The Court held that until payment and entry, the pre-emption laws confer only a conditional privilege to purchase if the land is offered for sale in the usual manner, not a right that binds the United States to sell.
- The Court held that the Act of June 30, 1864 passed title to California subject to the stated trust: public use, resort, and recreation, and inalienability except for limited-term leases.
- The Court affirmed Frisbie v. Whitney and explained and distinguished Lytle v. Arkansas as not controlling on Hutchings’s unperfected claim.

## Legal Principles

- A settler obtains no vested right in federal public land by occupation and improvement, even with an expressed intention to claim under the pre-emption laws.
- Congress retains full power of “regulation and disposition” over public lands until a pre-emption claimant completes all statutory prerequisites for title, including payment and entry.
- Pre-emption statutes do not create a contract requiring the United States to sell the occupied land; they grant only a preference to purchase if the government offers the land for sale.
- Before a claim is perfected, Congress may make another disposition of the land, including reserving it for public purposes or granting it to another grantee.
- The 1864 Yosemite grant conveyed title to California subject to enforceable conditions: the lands must be held for public use, resort, and recreation, and remain inalienable except as the statute permits (including leases limited in duration).
- Prior precedent (Frisbie v. Whitney) governs unperfected pre-emption claims; decisions like Lytle v. Arkansas do not protect a claimant who has not completed the steps that fix a right to a certificate of entry and patent.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Hutchings’s settlement and improvements in Yosemite Valley did not amount to a vested right under the pre-emption laws because he had not completed payment and entry, leaving Congress free to grant Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to California under an inalienable public-use trust and allowing California’s commissioners to recover possession.


*The Yosemite Valley Case*, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 77 (1872)

The Yosemite Valley Case, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 77 (1872)