## Facts

- Congress opened petroleum-bearing public lands to location and patent under placer-mining laws by the Act of Feb. 11, 1897.
- On Sept. 27, 1909, President Taft issued Petroleum Withdrawal No. 5, temporarily withdrawing more than three million acres of public land in California and Wyoming from location, entry, and disposal under the public-land laws due to their petroleum value and pending legislative consideration.
- Taft later informed Congress that the executive’s legal authority to make such withdrawals without express statutory authorization was uncertain and requested statutory validation.
- On June 25, 1910, Congress enacted the Pickett Act, authorizing temporary presidential withdrawals for specified purposes, while stating it neither recognized nor altered asserted rights initiated on oil or gas lands after pre-Act withdrawals.
- After the 1909 withdrawal, private actors drilled on the withdrawn Wyoming land, discovered oil, and in 1910 filed mining-law claims later conveyed to Midwest Oil Company.
- The United States sued in equity to recover the land and obtain an accounting for oil extracted, alleging the 1909 withdrawal was valid and barred post-withdrawal locations.
- The district court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint; the court of appeals certified questions to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court treated the full record as before it.

## Issues

1. Whether, before the June 25, 1910 statute, the President had lawful authority, without express statutory authorization, to withdraw petroleum-bearing public lands from private acquisition under land-disposal statutes.
2. Whether Petroleum Withdrawal No. 5 was effective to prevent the initiation of valid mining-law rights in the withdrawn lands after the withdrawal.
3. Whether the withdrawal’s validity depended on its purpose and whether that purpose had to be expressly stated.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and held for the United States.
- The Court held that, before the 1910 statute, the President had implied authority to withdraw unappropriated public lands from private acquisition.
- The Court held that Petroleum Withdrawal No. 5 was valid and immediately barred lawful locations and claim initiation under the mining laws for lands covered by the withdrawal.
- The Court held Midwest’s post-withdrawal claims created no rights enforceable against the United States.

## Legal Principles

- No private right in public land arises from general disposal statutes until a claimant lawfully initiates rights on land open to entry; until then, the claimant has no enforceable interest against the United States.
- A long-continued executive practice of withdrawing unappropriated public lands from entry, known to and acquiesced in by Congress and not repudiated, supports a presumption of authority to make temporary withdrawals.
- Congress’s power over the public domain includes proprietary authority; Congress may confer administrative powers over public lands on the Executive expressly or by implication.
- Temporary withdrawals are treated as administrative measures in managing when lands are exposed to disposal under general statutes and do not, by themselves, repeal or suspend congressional law; Congress remains free to disaffirm or override them.
- No controlling distinction exists between “reservations” and “withdrawals” for purposes of recognizing executive authority to set aside lands from entry, including withdrawals made in aid of proposed legislation.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld a pre-1910 implied presidential power to temporarily withdraw unappropriated public lands from private acquisition, grounded in longstanding executive practice and congressional acquiescence, and it ruled that the 1909 petroleum withdrawal barred Midwest’s post-withdrawal mining-law claims.


United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459 (1915)