In the case of Ervien, Commissioner of Public Lands of the State of New Mexico v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not lands granted to New Mexico upon its admission into the Union could be leased for oil and gas exploration. The court ruled in favor of the United States, stating that while Congress had indeed given these lands to New Mexico, it did so under a trust agreement which stipulated they must be used for public schools. Therefore, any leasing activity would need to benefit this cause directly. The ruling clarified that states have certain obligations regarding federally-granted land trusts and cannot use such properties solely at their own discretion.

In the dissenting opinion for Ervien v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of relevant statutes. He contended that under Section 6 of the Act of June 21, 1898, New Mexico had been granted absolute title to all lands within its borders not reserved by Congress at the time it became a state. Therefore, he believed that any subsequent reservations made by executive order were invalid as they infringed upon this grant. Additionally, he pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases involving other states had been handled and suggested there should be uniformity in decisions regarding land grants to new states. Ultimately, Justice McReynolds felt that New Mexico’s rights over public lands within its boundaries were being unfairly limited by federal authorities.