The Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 1936, is a U.S Supreme Court case that revolved around the issue of oil and gas leases on public lands. The plaintiff, Bourdieu, had obtained an oil and gas lease from the government for certain land in California but later assigned it to Pacific Western Oil Company with a condition that if any part of the leased premises was surrendered by them or taken away by the government due to non-compliance with laws or regulations, such portion would revert back to him. When some parts were indeed relinquished by Pacific Western Oil Company due to their failure in complying with drilling requirements set forth under federal law, Bourdieu sued claiming his reversionary rights over those portions. However, both lower courts ruled against him stating that he could not claim any right as his assignment contract itself was void being contrary to public policy which aimed at preventing monopolies over natural resources like oil and gas reserves on public lands. On appeal before Supreme Court too this decision got affirmed holding that such private agreements cannot be allowed which frustrate governmental policies regarding conservation of national resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a California law that allowed an oil company to drill on privately owned land without obtaining permission from or compensating the owner. He argued that this was a violation of due process and property rights, as it essentially amounted to government-sanctioned theft. He also took issue with how the law was applied in this case, stating that there were no safeguards in place to ensure fair treatment of landowners and prevent abuse by oil companies. Furthermore, he contended that such laws could lead to unchecked exploitation of natural resources at the expense of individual rights and environmental sustainability.