The U.S. Supreme Court case Chapman, Secretary of the Interior v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co., Inc., 1949 revolved around a dispute over coal mining rights in Wyoming. The federal government had leased land to the Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company for mining purposes but later sought to cancel this lease on grounds that it violated provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 which prohibited leasing lands containing oil or gas. The company argued that these lands were primarily valuable for their coal deposits and not oil or gas, hence they should retain their leasehold rights under an earlier law permitting such leases even if minor quantities of oil or gas were present. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government stating that any presence of oil or gas made them subject to regulations under the Mineral Leasing Act regardless whether they are primary resources or not. This decision upheld administrative authority and discretion in managing public lands while also emphasizing strict adherence to statutory language when interpreting laws related to natural resource extraction.

In the dissenting opinion for Chapman v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co., Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of statutory interpretation and administrative law. He contended that Congress had clearly intended to give coal companies like Sheridan-Wyoming exclusive rights to their leases, as long as they complied with certain conditions. The Secretary of Interior, according to him, did not have unlimited discretion to cancel these leases without cause or due process. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for deferring too much power and authority to administrative agencies at the expense of private property rights and judicial review. This case represented an unwarranted expansion of government control over natural resources which could lead to arbitrary decisions and potential abuses in future cases.