In the case of Hickel, Secretary of the Interior v. Oil Shale Corp. et al., 1970, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent issued by the United States to Oil Shale Corporation (TOSCO) for land containing oil shale deposits could be cancelled due to noncompliance with statutory requirements regarding mineral extraction and marketing. The court ruled in favor of TOSCO, stating that once a patent is issued it becomes irrevocable except under conditions specified within legislation or if obtained fraudulently. The government had argued that TOSCO failed to comply with certain provisions of an act passed in 1920 which required diligent operation and continuous production on patented lands; however, these provisions were not included as conditions in the original patent grant from 1918 nor were they present when Congress amended mining laws later on. Therefore, cancellation was deemed inappropriate since there was no legislative authority allowing such action based on post-patent conduct.

In the dissenting opinion for Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a 1920 law, which allowed private companies to lease federal lands rich in oil shale deposits, was misguided. He believed this legislation had been enacted at a time when it was not fully understood how valuable and scarce these resources would become. Therefore, he felt it inappropriate to continue applying such an outdated policy without considering modern circumstances and knowledge about resource scarcity. Furthermore, he expressed concern over the potential environmental impact of allowing private corporations unrestricted access to exploit these resources for profit. In his view, preserving natural resources should take precedence over commercial interests; hence public lands should be protected from exploitation by private entities.