Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States Et Al. v. Anchor Coal Co. Et Al.

1928 • 279 U.S. 812 • Taft Court
The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES et al. v. ANCHOR COAL CO. et al., 1928, involved a dispute over coal mining rights in the Osage Indian Reservation in Oklahoma. The U.S government sued Anchor Coal Company and others for illegally extracting coal from these lands without proper leasing agreements or paying royalties to the tribe as required by law. The defendants argued that they had obtained valid leases from individual tribal members who owned allotments of land within the...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taft Court
Term: 1928
Docket: 335
279 U.S. 812
49 S. Ct. 262
73 L. Ed. 971
1929 U.S. LEXIS 77
Argued: Feb 19, 1929

United States Et Al. v. Anchor Coal Co. Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES et al. v. ANCHOR COAL CO. et al., 1928, involved a dispute over coal mining rights in the Osage Indian Reservation in Oklahoma. The U.S government sued Anchor Coal Company and others for illegally extracting coal from these lands without proper leasing agreements or paying royalties to the tribe as required by law. The defendants argued that they had obtained valid leases from individual tribal members who owned allotments of land within the reservation and were therefore entitled to mine there. However, under federal law at that time, all mineral resources on Native American reservations were considered collectively owned by the tribe rather than individually by its members; thus any lease agreement needed approval from both tribal authorities and federal officials before it could be legally binding. The court ruled in favor of the U.S government stating that only Congress has authority to regulate commerce with Native American tribes including their natural resources such as minerals found on their lands; hence private companies cannot bypass this process through direct deals with individual tribal members.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Anchor Coal Co., argued that the government had not overstepped its bounds by imposing a tax on coal mined on leased federal lands. The dissenters believed that this was within the government's rights as owner of these lands, and they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court decisions regarding similar issues. They also pointed out that Congress had clearly intended for such taxes to be levied when it passed relevant legislation, and suggested that disregarding this intent could have serious implications for future cases involving governmental authority over public resources. Furthermore, they contended that if private companies were allowed to profit from mining activities without paying any form of compensation or tax to the government, it would essentially amount to a giveaway of valuable public assets.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms