author: Justice O’Connor Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    HATHORN et al. v. LOVORN et al.
    No. 81-451.
    Argued April 27, 1982
    Decided June 15, 1982

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Powell, J., concurred in the judgment. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 271.

      James C. Mayo argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.

      Laurel G. Weir argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.

      Assistant Attorney General Reynolds argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Barbara E. Etkind, Brian K. Landsberg, and Joan A. Magagna.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to decide whether a state court may order implementation of a change in election procedure over objections that the change is subject to preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I — I

Since 1960, the Louisville School District has been coextensive with Winston County, Miss. Until last December, the Louisville mayor and city aldermen appointed three of the five members of the District’s Board of Trustees, and Winston County voters residing outside Louisville elected the other two members.

In 1964, the Mississippi Legislature enacted a statute providing in part:

“The boards of trustees of all municipal separate school districts, either with or without added territory, shall consist of five (5) members, each to be chosen for a term of five (5) years, but so chosen that the term of office of one (1) member shall expire each year. . . . [I]n any county in which a municipal separate school district embraces the entire county in which Highways 14 and 15 intersect, one (1) trustee shall be elected from each supervisors district.” 1964 Miss. Gen. Laws, ch. 391, p. 563, codified, as amended, in Miss. Code Ann. §37-7-203(1) (Supp. 1981).

Winston County is the only Mississippi county in which Highways 14 and 15 intersect. Officials in that county never implemented § 37-7-203(1) because they believed the statute’s reference to Highways 14 and 15 violated a state constitutional prohibition against local, private, or special legislation.

In 1975, five Winston County voters filed an action in the Chancery Court of Winston County, seeking to enforce the neglected 1964 state statute. These plaintiffs, respondents here, named numerous Louisville and Winston County officials as defendants. The Chancery Court dismissed respondents’ complaint, holding that the statute violated Mississippi’s constitutional bar against local legislation. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, striking only the specific reference to Highways 14 and 15 and upholding the remaining requirement that, “in any county in which a municipal separate school district embraces the entire county,” each supervisors district must elect one trustee. Lovorn v. Hathom, 365 So. 2d 947 (1979) (en banc). The court then “remanded to the chancery court for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] opinion.” Id., at 952.

The local officials, petitioners here, filed a petition for rehearing, in which they argued for the first time that the Chancery Court could not implement the reformed statute until the change had been precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the petition without comment, and this Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. Hathorn v. Lovorn, 441 U. S. 946 (1979).

On remand, the Chancery Court ordered an election pursuant to the redacted statute. The court set out detailed procedures governing the election, including the requirement that “[i]f no candidate receives a majority of the vote cast at any of said elections . . . , a runoff election shall be held . . . between the two candidates receiving the highest vote [in the first election].” Record 143. The court derived the latter requirement from Miss. Code Ann. § 37-7-217 (Supp. 1981), which mandates runoffs in elections conducted under §37-7-203(1). See Miss. Code Ann. §37-7-209 (Supp. 1981). The Chancery Court also agreed with petitioners’ claim that the changes in election procedure fell within § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and directed petitioners to submit the election plan to the United States Attorney General for preclearance. Record 141, 146-147.

Upon review of petitioners’ submission, the Attorney General objected to the proposed change in election procedure “insofar as it incorporate[d] a majority vote requirement.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-8. Because of the substantial black population in Winston County, an apparent pattern of racially polarized voting in the county, and the historical absence of blacks from various local governing boards, the Attorney General concluded that the runoff procedure could have a discriminatory effect. Ibid,.

Respondents attempted to overcome this obstacle by both joining the Attorney General as a defendant and persuading the Chancery Court to hold the election without the runoff procedure. The court, however, refused to join the Attorney General and held that state law unambiguously required runoff elections. Buffeted by apparently conflicting state and federal statutes, the Chancery Court concluded that its decree calling for an election would “remain in force subject to compliance with the Federal Voters Rights Act [sic] as previously ordered by this Court.” Record 342.

Failing to obtain an election from the Chancery Court, respondents once again appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. That court observed that its “prior decision, which the United States Supreme Court declined to reverse or alter in any respect, became and is the law of the case.” Carter v. Luke, 399 So. 2d 1356, 1358 (1981). The court explained that because the prior decision upheld a statute referring to the statute requiring runoffs, and because both parties had agreed during oral argument to abide by the runoff procedure, the Chancery Court properly enforced the law requiring runoffs and improperly conditioned the election on compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the portion of the Chancery Court’s decree referring to the Voting Rights Act and “remanded with directions for the lower court to call and require the holding of an election.” Ibid. We granted certio-rari to decide whether the Mississippi Supreme Court properly ordered the election without insuring compliance with federal law. 454 U. S. 1122 (1981).

II

Before addressing the federal question raised by the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision, we must consider respondents’ assertion that the lower court decision rests upon two adequate and independent state grounds. First, respondents contend that the state court’s reliance upon the law of the case bars review of the federal question. It has long been established, however, that “[w]e have jurisdiction to consider all of the substantial federal questions determined in the earlier stages of [state proceedings],. . . and our right to re-examine such questions is not affected by a ruling that the first decision of the state court became the law of the case . . . .” Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85, 87 (1955). See also Davis v. O'Hara, 266 U. S. 314, 321 (1924); United States v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co., 191 U. S. 84, 93 (1903). Because we cannot review a state court judgment until it is final, a contrary rule would insulate interlocutory state court rulings on important federal questions from our consideration.

In this case the Mississippi Supreme Court’s first decision plainly did not appear final at the time it was rendered. The court’s remand “for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] opinion,” 365 So. 2d, at 952 (en banc), together with its failure to address expressly the Voting Rights Act issue, suggested that the Chancery Court could still consider the federal issue on remand. Indeed, the Chancery Court interpreted its mandate in precisely this manner. Under these circumstances, the Mississippi Supreme Court’s subsequent reliance on the law of the case cannot prevent us from reviewing federal questions determined in the first appeal.

Respondents also argue that the Mississippi Supreme Court pretermitted consideration of the Voting Rights Act because petitioners’ reliance upon the issue in a petition for rehearing was untimely. We have recognized that the failure to comply with a state procedural rule may constitute an independent and adequate state ground barring our review of a federal question. Our decisions, however, stress that a state procedural ground is not “adequate” unless the procedural rule is “strictly or regularly followed.” Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 146, 149 (1964). State courts may not avoid deciding federal issues by invoking procedural rules that they do not apply evenhandedly to all similar claims. Even if we construe the Mississippi Supreme Court’s denial of petitioners’ petition for rehearing as the silent application of a procedural bar, we cannot conclude that the state court consistently relies upon this rule.

Respondents cite two cases indicating that the Mississippi Supreme Court will consider an issue raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing “[o]nly in exceptional cases. ” New & Hughes Drilling Co. v. Smith, 219 So. 2d 657, 661 (Miss. 1969); Rigdon v. General Box Co., 249 Miss. 239, 246, 162 So. 2d 863, 864 (1964). Although these opinions may summarize the court’s practice prior to 1969, we have been unable to find any more recent decisions repeating or applying the rule. On the contrary, the Mississippi Supreme Court now regularly grants petitions for rehearing without mentioning any restrictions on its authority to consider issues raised for the first time in the petitions.

One particular decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, decided only last year, demonstrates that the court does not consistently preclude consideration of issues raised for the first time on rehearing. In Quinn v. Branning, 404 So. 2d 1018 (1981), the court held that part of a criminal statute violated the State Constitution’s prohibition against local legislation. Striking the offensive language, the court approved the rest of the statute and affirmed the underlying conviction. The defendant then petitioned for rehearing, pointing out that the affidavit against him did not allege a crime under the reformed statute. The court agreed with this contention, granted the petition in part, and reversed the conviction, all without mentioning the rule against consideration of new issues on rehearing. The striking similarity between Quinn and this case, both involving issues that the parties could have foreseen but that arose with urgency only after the court upheld part of a challenged statute, persuades us that the Mississippi Supreme Court is not “strictly or regularly” following a procedural rule precluding review of issues raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing. The denial of rehearing in this case, although not appearing sufficiently final to permit our immediate review, must have rested either upon a substantive rejection of petitioners’ federal claim or upon a procedural rule that the state court applies only irregularly. Thus, there are no independent and adequate state grounds barring our review of the federal issue.

Ill

Respondents do not dispute that the change in election procedures ordered by the Mississippi courts is subject to pre-clearance under §5. They urge, however, that the Voting Rights Act deprives state courts of the power even to decide whether §5 applies to a proposed change in voting procedures. Under their analysis of the Act, a state court asked to implement a change in the State’s voting laws could not inquire whether the change was subject to §5. Even if the change plainly fell within § 5, the court would have to ignore that circumstance and enter a decree violating federal law. Both the language and purposes of the Voting Rights Act refute this notion.

Only last Term we summarized the principles governing state court jurisdiction to decide federal issues. Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U. S. 478 (1981). We begin, in every case, “with the presumption that state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction” over those claims. Id., at 478. Only “an explicit statutory directive, [an] unmistakable implication from legislative history, or ... a clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests” will rebut the presumption. Ibid. Most important for our purposes, even a finding of exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims arising under a federal statute usually “will not prevent a state court, from deciding a federal question collaterally.” Id., at 483, n. 12.

Respondents rest their jurisdictional argument on three sections of the Act. Section 14(b) provides that “[n]o court other than the District Court for the District of Columbia. . . shall have jurisdiction to issue any declaratory judgment pursuant to . . . section 5 . . . 79 Stat. 445, 42 U. S. C. § 19737(b). We have already held, however, that this provision governs only declaratory judgments approving proposed changes in voting procedure. Other courts may decide the distinct question of whether a proposed change is subject to the Act. See Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 557-560 (1969); McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 (1981).

Sections 5 and 12(f) of the Act provide somewhat stronger support for respondents’ claim. Section 5 provides that “[ajny action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code,” 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, while § 12(f) declares that “[t]he district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section.” 79 Stat. 444, 42 U. S. C. § 1973j(f). It is possible that these sections grant the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over “action[s] under” § 5 or “proceedings instituted pursuant” to § 12. We need not resolve that question in this case, however, because respondents’ state suit fell within neither of these categories. Instead, respondents’ initial suit was an action to compel compliance with a forgotten state law. Nothing in § 5 or § 12 negates the presumption that, at least when the issue arises collaterally, state courts may decide whether a proposed change in election procedure requires preclearance under § 5.

The policies of the Act support the same result. The Voting Rights Act “implemented Congress’ firm intention to rid the country of racial discrimination in voting.” Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 548. Fearing that covered jurisdictions would exercise their ingenuity to devise new and subtle forms of discrimination, Congress prohibited those jurisdictions from implementing any change in voting procedure without obtaining preclearance under § 5. Granting state courts the power to decide, as a collateral matter, whether § 5 applies to contemplated changes in election procedures will help insure compliance with the preclearance scheme. Approval of this limited jurisdiction also avoids placing state courts in the uncomfortable position of ordering voting changes that they suspect, but cannot determine, should be precleared under § 5. Accordingly, we hold that the Mississippi courts had the power to decide whether §5 applied to the change sought by respondents.

If the Mississippi courts had the power to make this determination, then it is clear that they also had the duty to do so. “State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation ... to uphold federal law.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 494, n. 35 (1976) (citing Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 341-344 (1816)). Section 5 declares that whenever a covered jurisdiction shall “enact or seek to administer any . . . standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,” see n. 1, swpra, it must obtain either preclearance from the Attorney General or a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Our opinions repeatedly note that failure to follow either of these routes renders the change unenforceable. See, e. g., Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 46 (1978); United States v. Board of Supervisors, 429 U. S. 642, 645 (1977) (per curiam). When a party to a state proceeding asserts that § 5 renders the contemplated relief unenforceable, therefore, the state court must examine the claim and refrain from ordering relief that would violate federal law.

IV

Our holding mandates reversal of the lower court judgment. Under our analysis, the change in election procedure is subject to § 5, see n. 16, supra, and the Mississippi courts may not further implement that change until the parties comply with §5. At this time, however, we need not decide whether petitioners are entitled to any additional relief. The United States has initiated a federal suit challenging the change at issue here, see n. 8, supra, and we agree with the Solicitor General that the District Court entertaining that suit should address the problem of relief in the first instance. As we noted in Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 395-397 (1971), a local district court is in a better position than this Court to fashion relief, because the district court “is more familiar with the nuances of the local situation” and has the opportunity to hear evidence. Id., at 397. In this case, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi will be better able to decide whether a special election is necessary, whether a more moderate form of interim relief will satisfy § 5, or whether new elections are so imminent that special relief is inappropriate. We hold only that the Mississippi courts must withhold further implementation of the disputed change in election procedures until the parties demonstrate compliance with § 5. Accordingly, the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Justice Powell concurs in the judgment.

Justice Rehnquist,

dissenting.

The provisions of §§ 5,12(f), and 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act, referred to in the opinion of the Court, ante, at 265-268, convince me that Congress did not intend the state courts to play a role in the enforcement of that Act. In Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U. S. 473 (1981), upon which the Court heavily relies for its contrary conclusion, we said:

“The factors generally recommending exclusive federal-court jurisdiction over an area of federal law include the desirability of uniform interpretation, the expertise of federal judges in federal law, and the assumed greater hospitality of federal courts to peculiarly federal claims.” Id., at 483-484 (footnotes omitted).

It seems to me that each of these factors counsels in favor of exclusive federal-court jurisdiction, and I do not understand the Court to contend otherwise.

From a practical point of view, I think the Court’s decision is bound to breed conflicts between the state courts and the federal district courts sitting within the States, each of which may now determine whether or not a particular voting change must be precleared with the Attorney General before being enforced in a covered jurisdiction. Indeed, the precursor of such conflict may well be found in the Court’s concluding observations that the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, in which the United States has pending a suit pertaining to the change involved in this case, should proceed to make determinations under the Voting Rights Act before the state court whose judgment we are reviewing renders further remedy in this case. Exactly what is to be left to the States under this construction is more than a little problematical.

I do not think that the goals of the Voting Rights Act will be materially advanced by the Court’s somewhat tortured effort to make the state courts a third line of enforcement for the Act, after the District Court for the District of Columbia and other federal district courts. The principal effect of today’s decision will be to enable one or the other of parties such as those involved in this case, neither of whom were intended to be primary beneficiaries of the Voting Rights Act, to employ the Act as another weapon in their arsenal of litigation strategies.

       Section 5 provides in relevant part:
      “Whenever a [covered] State or political subdivision . . . shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,. . . such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f )(2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. . . .” 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c.
      Section 4 of the Act, 79 Stat. 438, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b, defines covered jurisdictions.

       Mississippi Const., Art. 4, §90, provides:
      “The legislature shall not pass local, private, or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, but-such matters shall be provided for only by general laws, viz.:

        “(p) Providing for the management or support of any private or common school, incorporating the same, or granting such school any privileges.”

       The voters initially filed their suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. That court stayed federal proceedings to give the Mississippi courts an opportunity to construe the state statute at issue. Record 320. In 1979, pursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal by stipulation, the court dismissed the federal action without prejudice. Id,., at 323.

       The voters also charged that the electoral system then in force violated the constitutional principle of one person/one vote. This issue is not before us.

       As we have explained on numerous occasions, covered jurisdictions may satisfy § 5 by submitting proposed changes to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General objects to the proposal, the jurisdiction may either request reconsideration or seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A covered jurisdiction, of course, also may seek a declaratory judgment in the first instance, omitting submission to the Attorney General. See generally Blanding v. DuBose, 454 U. S. 393 (1982); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 548-550 (1969).

       At that time, the Attorney General noted, blacks constituted approximately 39% of the Winston County population but were not a majority in any of the districts from which trustees were to be elected.

       The Attorney General also observed that the Louisville School District appears to be the only countywide district in which Mississippi requires runoff elections.

       Shortly before petitioners filed their petition for certiorari, the Chancery Court set an election for December 5, 1981. That court, the Mississippi Supreme Court, and this Court denied motions to stay the election. See 454 U. S. 1070 (1981). On December 1, the United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, seeking to enjoin implementation of the voting change involved in this case. The District Court refused to issue a temporary restraining order and has not taken any other action.
      The December 5 election was held as scheduled. Although the record does not reflect the results of the election, the United States has informed us that a runoff election was held. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10, n. 12.

       28 U. S. C. §1257; O’Dell v. Espinoza, 456 U. S. 430 (1982); Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 324 U. S. 548, 551 (1945).

       The Chancellor, in fact, noted that it “would have been impossible to have submitted to the Attorney General for approval until this Court had set up the mechanics of the election, for until that was done, the Attorney General would not have the data necessary to either approve or disapprove.” Record 90-91.

       Nor, of course, does our previous denial of petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari preclude us from examining questions decided during the first state appeal. It is “well-settled . . . that denial of certiorari imparts no implication or inference concerning the Court’s view of the merits.” Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U. S. 363, 366, n. 1 (1973).

        E. g., Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 512, n. 7 (1978); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 264, n. 4 (1964).

       In New & Hughes Drilling Co. itself, the Mississippi Supreme Court permitted an exception to the alleged rule barring review of questions raised for the first time on rehearing. A case decided the same year as New & Hughes Drilling Co. is the most recent decision we have found that might have actually applied the procedural rule described by respondents. See Leake County Cooperative v. Dependents of Barrett, 226 So. 2d 608, 614-616 (Miss. 1969). Even that decision, however, may have rested upon a special rule involving waiver of defects in venue.
      Neither the Mississippi Code nor the Rules of the Supreme Court of Mississippi embody the alleged prohibition against presentation of new issues in petitions for rehearing. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to know whether the Mississippi Supreme Court still adheres to the rule, applying it silently, or whether the court has abandoned the rule.

       See, e. g., Cortez v. Brown, 408 So. 2d 464 (1981) (en banc); Cash v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co., 388 So. 2d 871 (1980) (en banc); McKee v. McKee, 382 So. 2d 287 (1980) (en banc); City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publishing Co., 373 So. 2d 802 (1979) (en banc); Realty Title Guaranty Co. v. Howard, 355 So. 2d 657 (1977) (en banc); Couch v. Martinez,
        357 So. 2d 107 (1978) (en banc); Foster v. Foster, 344 So. 2d 460 (1977) (en banc); McCrory v. State, 342 So. 2d 897 (1977) (en banc); Daniels v. State, 341 So. 2d 918 (1977) (en banc); Mississippi State Highway Comm’n v. Gresham, 323 So. 2d 100, 103 (1975) (en banc); Powers v. Malley, 302 So. 2d 262, 264 (1974).
      In Mississippi State Highway Comm’n v. Gresham, supra, the court expressly noted that its disposition depended upon a fact mentioned for the first time in the petition for rehearing. In several other decisions, the type of question considered on rehearing suggests that it was raised for the first time by the party petitioning for that relief. E. g., Cortez v. Brown, supra; City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publishing Co., supra; Powers v. Malley, supra. These decisions, however, do not expressly acknowledge the novelty of the points raised on rehearing.

       Respondents also contend that our decisions establish a general rule against review of questions presented for the first time in a petition for rehearing. We have recognized that, under many circumstances, “[q]ues-tions first presented to the highest State court on a petition for rehearing come too late for consideration here.” Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 128 (1945). At the same time, however, we have explained that this bar does not apply if “the State court exerted its jurisdiction in such a way that the case could have been brought here had the questions been raised prior to the original disposition.” Ibid. In this case we conclude that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s first judgment on appeal either decided the federal question on the merits, although in a manner that did not appear final, or avoided the federal question by invoking an inconsistently applied procedural rule. If petitioners had made their claim prior to the court’s original disposition, either of these circumstances would have permitted us to review the federal question.

       Mississippi plainly is one of the jurisdictions covered by the statute. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 388 U. S. 301, 318 (1966); 30 Fed. Reg. 9897 (1965). The Louisville School District Board of Trustees, like all political entities within the State, accordingly must comply with § 5’s strictures. See Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 46 (1978); United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, 435 U. S. 110 (1978). It is immaterial that the change sought by respondents derives from a statute that predates the Voting Rights Act, because §5 comes into play whenever a covered jurisdiction departs from an election procedure that was “in fact ‘in force or effect’... on November 1, 1964.” Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 395 (1971) (emphasis in original).
      Finally, the presence of a court decree does not exempt the contested change from § 5. We held only last Term that § 5 applies to any change “reflecting the policy choices of the elected representatives of the people,” even if a judicial decree constrains those choices. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130, 153 (1981). Although McDaniel involved a reapportionment plan drafted pursuant to a federal court’s order, its interpretation of § 5 is equally instructive here. When state or local officials comply with a court order to enforce a state statute, there is no doubt that their actions “reflec[t] the policy choices of. . . elected representatives.” Indeed, if § 5 did not encompass this situation, covered jurisdictions easily could evade the statute by declining to implement new state statutes until ordered to do so by state courts. Cf. McDaniel v. Sanchez, supra, at 151 (noting that “if covered jurisdictions could avoid the normal preclearance procedure by awaiting litigation challenging a refusal to redistrict after a census is completed, [§ 5] might have the unintended effect of actually encouraging delay in making obviously needed changes in district boundaries”). In light of McDaniel, we conclude that a state court decree directing compliance with a state election statute contemplates “administ[ration]” of the state statute within the meaning of § 5.

       Respondents do not claim that Mississippi law restricts the state courts' power to decide questions related to § 5.

       We frequently permit state courts to decide “collaterally” issues that would be reserved for the federal courts if the cause of action arose directly under federal law. For example, the state courts may decide a variety of questions involving the federal patent laws. American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257 (1916); New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U. S. 473 (1912); Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co., 168 U. S. 255 (1897). Similarly, although state courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits brought pursuant to § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15, they often decide issues concerning the federal antitrust laws in other contexts. See, e. g., California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97 (1980); Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70 (1902), quoted with approval in Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U. S. 72, 81-82, n. 7 (1982). See generally Note, Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in Private Civil Actions, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 509, 510-511 (1957).

       Section 12(d) authorizes preventive relief against persons “engaged or . . . about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by” designated sections of the Voting Rights Act. 79 Stat. 444, 42 U. S. C. § 1973j(d).

       At least one state court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over claims arising under the Voting Rights Act. Ortiz v. Thompson, 604 S. W. 2d 443 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980). See also Beatty v. Esposito, 411 F. Supp. 107 (EDNY 1976) (finding that state court lacked jurisdiction to decide § 5 issue, without explaining whether state suit arose under the Voting Rights Act).

       Respondents also based their suit on the Fourteenth Amendment. See n. 4, supra.

       Neither the parties nor the United States, appearing as amicus curiae, has cited any legislative history bearing upon state court jurisdiction to decide issues arising under the Voting Rights Act.

       As respondents point out, state court jurisdiction to decide these collateral issues is not absolutely necessary to effectuate the Act’s scheme, because interested parties have the ability to seek relief from a federal district court. Recognition of a limited state power to address § 5 issues, however, furthers the Act’s ameliorative purposes by permitting additional tribunals to enforce its commands. It also insures that the question of coverage will be addressed at the earliest possible time, without requiring duplicative lawsuits.
      We find little force in respondents’ claim that, if the state courts possess jurisdiction to decide § 5 issues arising in disputes between private parties, they will frustrate the Attorney General’s enforcement of the Act by interpreting the preclearance requirement conservatively. The Attorney General is not bound by the resolution of § 5 issues in cases to which he was not a party. City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358, 373-374, n. 6 (1975). Common notions of collateral estoppel suggest that the state proceedings similarly would not bind other interested persons who did not participate in them. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments §68 (Tent. Draft No. 4, Apr. 15, 1977). Persons dissatisfied with a state court’s collateral resolution of a §5 issue in proceedings involving other parties, therefore, are likely to be able to litigate the issue anew in federal court.

       Our holding does not prevent state courts from attempting to accommodate both state and federal interests. A state court, for example, might adopt the approach followed by the Chancery Court in this case, and order the parties to submit the proposed relief to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General registers an objection, the court might then order the parties to seek a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia.

       For example, since the Attorney General objected only to the runoff procedure, the District Court simply might void the results of any runoff elections, permitting the candidates who gathered a plurality of votes in the general election to take those seats. We, of course, intimate no view on the best form of relief, leaving that matter to the District Court’s discretion.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice White Justice Rehnquist,

license: Public Domain

text:
    CALIFORNIA ex rel. STATE LANDS COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES
    No. 89,
    Orig.
    Argued March 29, 1982
    Decided June 18, 1982

      White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burgee, C. J., and Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Stevens and O’Connor, JJ., joined, post, p. 288.

      Bruce S. Flushman, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the briefs were George Deukmejian, Attorney General, N. Gregory Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, and Dennis M. Eagan and Patricia Sheehan Peterson, Deputy Attorneys General.

      Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solid-tor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Dinkins, and Michael W. Reed.

      A brief of amici curiae was filed for the State of Washington et al. by Kenneth 0. Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington, Malachy R. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert C. Hargreaves, Assistant Attorney General; Charles A. Graddick, Attorney General of Alabama, and Sarah M. Spratling, Assistant Attorney General; Wilson L. Condon, Attorney General of Alaska, and G. Thomas Koester, Assistant Attorney General; Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General of Arizona, and Anthony B. Ching, Solicitor General; Tany S. Hong, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Johnson H. Wong, Deputy Attorney General; Jeff Bingaman, Attorney General of New Mexico, and J. Scott Hall, Special Assistant Attorney General; and Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General of Oregon, and Peter Herman, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

   Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue before the Court is the ownership of oceanfront land created through accretion to land owned by the United States on the coast of California. The decision turns on whether federal or state law governs the issue.

M

From the time of California s admission to the Union in 1850, the United States owned the upland on the north side of the entrance channel to Humboldt Bay, Cal. In 1859 and 1871, the Secretary of the Interior ordered that certain of these lands, which fronted on the Pacific Ocean, the channel, and Humboldt Bay be reserved from public sale. Since that time the land has been continuously possessed by the United States and used as a Coast Guard Reservation. The Pacific shoreline along the Coast Guard site remained substantially unchanged until near the turn of the century when the United States began construction of two jetties at the entrance to Humboldt Bay. The jetty constructed on the north side of the entrance resulted in fairly rapid accretion on the ocean side of the Coast Guard Reservation, so that formerly submerged lands became uplands. One hundred and eighty-four acres of upland were created by the seaward movement of the ordinary high-water mark. This land, which remains barren save for a watchtower, is the subject of the dispute in this case.

The controversy arose in 1977 when the Coast Guard applied for permission from California to use this land to construct the watchtower. At this time it became evident that both California and the United States asserted ownership of the land. The United States eventually built the watchtower without obtaining California’s permission. Invoking our original jurisdiction, California then filed this suit to quiet title to the subject land. We granted leave for California to file a bill of complaint. 454 U. S. 809 (1981).

California alleges that upon its admission to the Union on September 9, 1850, Act of Sept. 9, 1850, 9 Stat. 452, and by confirmation in the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. §1301 et séq., California became vested with absolute title to the tidelands and the submerged lands upon which, after construction of the jetties, alluvion was deposited, resulting in formation of the subject land. Because the accretion formed on sovereign state land, California maintains that its law should govern ownership. Under California law, a distinction is drawn between accretive changes to a boundary caused by natural forces and boundary changes caused by the construction of artificial objects. For natural accretive changes, the upland boundary moves seaward as the alluvion is deposited, resulting in a benefit to the upland owner. Los Angeles v. Anderson, 206 Cal. 662, 667, 275 P. 789, 791 (1929). Whén accretion is caused by construction of artificial works, however, the boundary does not move but becomes fixed at the ordinary high-water mark at the time the artificial influence is introduced. Carpenter v. Santa Monica, 63 Cal. App. 2d 772, 794, 147 P. 2d 964, 975 (1944). It is not disputed that the newly formed land in controversy was created by the construction of the jetty. Therefore, if state law governs, California would prevail.

By its answer, and supporting memoranda, the United States contends that the formerly submerged lands were never owned by California before passage of the Submerged Lands Act in 1953, and that the disputed land was not granted to California by the Act. The United States also submits that the case is governed by federal rather than state law and that under long-established federal law, accretion, whatever its cause, belongs to the upland owner. Jones v. Johnston, 18 How. 150, 156 (1856); County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46, 66 (1874); Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co., 134 U. S. 178, 189-193 (1890); Beaver v. United States, 350 F. 2d 4, 10-11 (CA9 1965). If such federal law controls, title to the deposited land vested in the United States as the accretions formed.

Recognizing that the choice-of-law issue was clearly drawn, California moved for summary judgment and the United States moved for judgment on the pleadings. No essential facts being in dispute, a special master was not appointed and the case was briefed and argued. We conclude that federal law governs the decision in this case and that the land in dispute is owned by the United States.

I — I HH

In Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10 (1935), the city filed suit to quiet its title to land claimed to be tideland and to belong to the city by virtue of a grant from the State. The defendant claimed by virtue of a patent from the United States issued after California entered the Union. In an opinion by Chief Justice Hughes, and with a single dissent, the Court held that if the land in question was tideland, the title passed to California at the time of her admission to the Union in 1850; that it remained to be determined whether the land at issue was tideland; and that this issue was “necessarily a federal question” controlled by federal law. The Court said:

“Petitioners claim under a federal patent which, according to the plat, purported to convey land bordering on the Pacific Ocean. There is no question that the United States was free to convey the upland, and the patent affords no ground for holding that it did not convey all the title that the United States had in the premises. The question as to the extent of this federal grant, that is, as to the limit of the land conveyed, or the boundary between the upland and the tideland, is necessarily a federal question. It is a question which concerns the validity and effect of an act done by the United States; it involves the ascertainment of the essential basis of a right asserted under federal law. Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 669, 670; Brewer-Elliott Oil Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 77, 87; United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U. S. 49, 55, 56; United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 75. Rights and interests in the tideland, which is subject to the sovereignty of the State, are matters of local law. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338; Skively v. Bowlby, [152 U. S. 1,] 40; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 382; Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Washington R. Co., 255 U. S. 56, 63.” Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, supra, at 22.

The Court went on to hold that tidelands extend to the mean high-water line, which the Court then defined as a matter of federal law.

There was no question of accretions to the shoreline of the property involved in Borax. But some 30 years later, Mrs. Stella Hughes, the successor in interest to the owner of oceanfront property patented by the United States prior to the entry of the State of Washington into the Union, sued the State seeking to quiet her title to accretions that had become attached to her land and that had caused a seaward movement of the shoreline. Under Washington law, the accretions belonged to the State, the owner of the tidelands, and Mrs. Hughes would no longer own property fronting on the ocean. Under federal law accretions are the property of the upland owner. The trial court found that federal law applied. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that Washington law applied and that the State owned any land that accreted after statehood. Hughes v. State, 67 Wash. 2d. 799, 410 P. 2d 20 (1966).

We in turn reversed, reaffirming the decision in Borax that federal law determined the boundary between state-owned tidelands and property granted under a federal patent and holding that the same law applied to determine the boundary between state-owned tidelands and oceanfront property where accretions had extended the shoreline seaward. Hughes v. Washington, 389 U. S. 290 (1967). The justification for employing federal law was the special nature of the coastal boundary question: “The' rule deals with waters that lap both the lands of the State and the boundaries of the international sea. This relationship, at this particular point of the marginal sea, is too close to the vital interest of the Nation in its own boundaries to allow it to be governed by any law but the ‘supreme Law of the Land.’” Id., at 293. We went on to decide that under federal law, the federal grantee of the uplands had the right to the accumulated accretions.

Except for the fact that in the present case the upland to which the accretions attached has always been owned by the United States, this case and Hughes are similarly situated. Unless Hughes is to be overruled, judgment must be entered for the United States.

California urges that for all intents and purposes Hughes has already been eviscerated by Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U. S. 363 (1977). Corvallis involved a dispute between the State of Oregon and an Oregon corporation over the ownership of land that became part of a riverbed because of avulsive changes in the river’s course. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of the land to the corporation because that was the result dictated by federal common law, which, under Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 414 U. S. 313 (1973), was the proper source of law. A majority of this Court reversed, overruling Bonelli and holding that the disputed ownership of the riverbed should be decided solely as a matter of Oregon law. Bonelli's error was said to have been reliance on the equal-footing doctrine as a source of federal common law. Once the equal-footing doctrine had vested title to the riverbed in Arizona, “it did not operate after that date to determine what effect on titles the movement of the river might have.” 429 U. S., at 371. State, rather than federal law, should have been applied.

California urges that in rejecting Bonelli and holding that disputes about the title to lands granted by the United States are to be settled by state law, the Court also rejected Hughes since that case involved land that had been patented by the United States to private owners. We do not agree. Corvallis itself recognized that federal law would continue to apply if “there were present some other principle of federal law requiring state law to be displaced. ” 429 U. S., at 371. For example, the effects of accretive and avulsive changes in the course of a navigable stream forming an interstate boundary is determined by federal law. Id., at 375. The Corvallis opinion also recognized that Bonelli did not rest upon Hughes and that the Hughes Court considered oceanfront property “sufficiently different... so as to justify a ‘federal common law’ rule of riparian proprietorship.” 429 U. S., at 377, n. 6. The Corvallis decision did not purport to disturb Hughes.

Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U. S. 653 (1979), made clear that Corvallis also does not apply “where the [United States] Government has never parted with title and its interest in the property continues.” 442 U. S., at 670. The dispute in Corvallis was between the State and a private owner of land previously in federal possession. In contrast, the riparian owner in Wilson was the United States, holding reservation land in trust for the Omaha Indian Tribe. The issue was the effect of accretive or avulsive changes in the course of a navigable stream. State boundaries were not involved. What we said in Wilson is at least equally applicable here where the United States has held title to, occupied, and utilized the littoral land for over 100 years: “[T]he general rule recognized by Corvallis does not oust federal law in this case. Here, we are not dealing with land titles merely derived from a federal grant, but with land with respect to which the United States has never yielded title or terminated its interest.” 442 U. S., at 670.

We conclude, based on Hughes v. Washington and Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, that a dispute over accretions to oceanfront land where title rests with or was derived from the Federal Government is to be determined by federal law.

III

Controversies governed by federal law do not inevitably require resort to uniform federal rules. Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, supra, at 672. It may be determined as a matter of choice of law that, although federal law should govern a given question, state law should be borrowed and applied as the federal rule for deciding the substantive legal issue at hand. Board of Commissioners of Jackson County v. United States, 308 U. S. 343 (1939); Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 289 (1941). This is not such a case. First, and dispositive in itself, is the fact that Congress has addressed the issue of accretions to federal land. The Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., vested title in the States to the lands underlying the territorial sea, which, in California’s case, extended three miles seaward from the ordinary low-water line. The Act also confirmed the title of the States to the tidelands up to the line of mean high tide. Section 5(a) of the Act, however, withheld from the grant to the States all “accretions” to coastal lands acquired or reserved by the United States. 43 U. S. C. § 1313(a). In light of this provision, borrowing for federal-law purposes a state rule that would divest federal ownership is foreclosed. In Wilson, where we did adopt state law as the federal rule, no special federal concerns, let alone a statutory directive, required a federal common-law rule.

Moreover, this is not a case in which federal common law must be created. For over 100 years it has been settled under federal law that the right to future accretions is an inherent and essential attribute of the littoral or riparian owner. New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 717 (1836); County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall., at 68. “‘Almost all jurists and legislators, . . . both ancient and modern, have agreed that the owner of the land thus bounded is entitled to these additions.’” Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co., 134 U. S., at 189, quoting Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57, 67 (1865). We rejected the invitation to rely on state law in Hughes, which California readily admits is a case “in which the facts and issues are essentially identical,” Statement in Support of Motion for Leave to File Complaint 16, and we see no reason at this juncture to adopt California’s minority rule on artificial accretions, even if we were free to do so.

Applying the federal rule that accretions, regardless of cause, accrue to the upland owner, we conclude that title to the entire disputed land in issue is vested in the United States.

IV

Despite Hughes and Wilson, California claims ownership of the disputed lands because all of the accretions were deposited on tidelands and submerged lands, title to which, California submits, was vested in the State by the equal-footing doctrine and confirmed by the Submerged Lands Act. But California’s, claim to the land underlying the territorial sea was firmly rejected in United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947), which held that only land underneath inland waters was included in the initial grant to the States under the equal-footing doctrine. Furthermore, the Submerged Lands Act was a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to dispose of federal property, Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S. 272, 273-274 (1954), and “did not impair the validity” of the California decision, United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 7, 20 (1960). In any event, whatever the ownership of the submerged lands, this approach, based as it is on the equal-footing doctrine and the federal statute, is not a claim that state law should govern but a claim that the historic rule that accretions belong to the upland owner is wrong and should be replaced with a rule awarding title to the owner of the land on which the accretions took place. To accept this submission, however, would require rejecting not only Hughes, but also the long-established federal rule that accretions belong to the upland owner — a doctrine consistent with the majority rule prevailing in the States. See Part III, supra. Indeed, the proposed rule is also inconsistent with California’s own law that accretions attributable to natural causes belong to the upland owner. For all these reasons, we refuse the invitation to depart from the long-settled rule.

Independent of the above analysis, California claims that the United States expressly surrendered title to the disputed land through the Submerged Lands Act. California argues the subject land falls within the general grant to the States of “lands beneath navigable waters.” Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “lands beneath navigable waters” to include “all filled in, made, or reclaimed lands which formerly were lands beneath navigable waters.” 43 U. S. C. § 1301(a)(3). Because the jetty construction caused fairly rapid accretion, and, but for the construction of the jetties, the subject land would have remained submerged, California submits the accretion-formed land is “made” land, whose title rests in California by virtue of the Submerged Lands Act.

We do not read this provision of the Act as applying to the gradual process by which sand accumulated along the shore, although caused by a jetty affecting the action of the sea. Moreover, to the extent that the accretions are to be considered “made” land, they would fall within the reservation by the United States of “all lands filled in, built up, or otherwise reclaimed by the United States for its own use.” This follows from the congressional object to assure each sovereign the continuing benefit of landfill and like work performed by each. In any event, § 5(a) of the Act expressly withholds from the grant to the States all “accretions” to lands reserved by the United States, and both California and the United States agree that the exposure of the formerly submerged lands in dispute constitutes “accretion.” This reading of the Act adheres to the principle that federal grants are to be construed strictly in favor of the United States. United States v. Grand River Dam Authority, 363 U. S. 229, 235 (1960); United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 112, 116 (1957).

Finally, California submits that the Act granted title to the State by confirming the title of persons who, on June 5,1950, were entitled to such lands “under the law of the respective States in which the land is located . . . 43 U. S. C. § 1311(a). This provision means nothing more than that state law determines the proper beneficiary of the grant of land under the Act; it is clear that federal law determines the scope of the grant under the Act in the first instance.

V

We reaffirm today that federal law determines the boundary of oceanfront lands owned or patented by the United States. Applying the federal rule that accretions of whatever cause belong to the upland owner, we find that title to the disputed parcel rests with the United States. Accordingly, California’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and the United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The parties, or either of them, may, before September 27,1982, submit a proposed decree to carry this opinion into effect, failing which the Court will prepare and enter an appropriate decree at the next Term of Court.

It is so ordered.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor join, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment. I believe that our decision in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U. S. 653 (1979), requires the application of federal common law to resolve this title dispute between the United States and California, and that § 5(a) of the Submerged Lands Act indicates the source of that law.

The dispute in this case concerns the ownership of artificially caused accretions on oceanfront property belonging to the United States. The dispute centers on the legal effect of the movement of the “mean high-water mark.” That mark separates the fastlands continuously owned by the United States from the “tidelands” — the area of partially submerged lands between the mean high- and low-water marks. California’s claim of title to the tidelands is based upon the equal-footing doctrine. Because the tidelands belong to it and because the accretions formed on the tidelands, California contends that state law applies to resolve this title dispute between it and the United States. The rule adopted by the California courts regarding artificially caused accretions holds that title to accreted land vests with the State rather than the riparian or littoral owner. The United States contends that federal common law applies and argues that the federal common-law rule holds that title to land formed by accretion vests in the owner of the riparian land.

The dispute in this case is similar to that in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe. We held in Wilson that federal common law and not state law governs title disputes resulting from changes in the course of a navigable stream where an instrumentality of the Federal Government is the riparian owner. 442 U. S., at 669-671. The rule of Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U. S. 363 (1977), was distinguished. The Corvallis rule — that state law governs — applies where the dispute over the legal effect of a shifting riverbed does not involve claims of title by a federal instrumentality.

I agree with the Court that the Wilson rule applies to oceanfront property as well as riverfront property where the Federal Government is the littoral owner. Wilson should apply to the movement of the high-water mark along the ocean in a fashion similar to the way it applies to changes in the bed of a navigable stream. In the instant case, as in Wilson, it is irrelevant that the accretion, as a geographical “fact,” formed on land within the State’s dominion, be it a river bottom or the ocean tidelands. The fact is that both Wilson and the instant case concern title disputes over changes in the shoreline where the Federal Government owns land along the shoreline.

In Wilson, we held that state law supplied the applicable rule of decision even though federal common law applied to resolve the title dispute. We found no need for a uniform national rule and no reason why federal interests should not be treated under the same rules of property that would apply to private persons. In contrast to Wilson, however, I agree with the Court that Congress in §5(a) of the Submerged Lands Act has supplied the rule of decision. Section 5(a) withholds from the grant to the States all accretions to coastal lands acquired or reserved by the United States. I also agree with the Court that California did not acquire the disputed lands pursuant to the “made lands” provisions in § 2(a)(3).

Consequently, the Court’s discussion regarding the continuing vitality of Hughes v. Washington, 389 U. S. 290 (1967), is dicta. Hughes is unnecessary to the resolution of choice-of-law issues in title disputes between the Federal Government and a State or private person. Reliance on Hughes would be necessary only if we were to hold that federal common law, rather than state law, applied in a title dispute between a federal patentee and a State or private persons as to lands fronting an ocean. The instant case does not present that issue. It is difficult to reconcile Hughes with Corvallis and we should postpone that endeavor until required to undertake it.

In summary, I think this case can be easily resolved as a title dispute between the United States and California concerning the legal effect of movement of the Pacific Ocean’s high-water mark. Wilson and the Submerged Lands Act resolve the dispute. The continuing vitality of Hughes should be left to another day.

       Secretarial Order, December 27, 1859; Secretarial Order, August 19, 1871. See Exhibit C to Exhibits in Support of California’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint.

       Construction of the jetties commenced on the South Spit in 1889 and on the North Spit in 1890. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Survey Report on Humboldt Bay, California, App. I, Shoreline Changes 2-3, 8-9 (Feb. 10, 1950), Exhibit D (hereafter cited as Corps Report). The north jetty was a massive work, having a total length of 7,500 feet.

       The United States and California agree that the seaward shift of the shoreline was caused by the construction of the jetties. A study by the Army Corps of Engineers found:

        “With the inauguration of jetty construction in 1890, there began a series of interruptions in normal littoral transport [of sand]. With each increment in length of the jetties the [Humboldt] bar was pushed seaward. Consequent decrease in offshore depths caused the shore to advance on each side of the inlet.” Id., at 8, ¶21.
      After jetty construction,
      “. . . the Humboldt bar. . . shifted and reformed seaward of its 1870 position, and the ocean high-water shore line along the north spit. . . shifted seaward. The seaward advance of the north spit shore line was most pronounced upon reconstruction of the north jetty in 1917.” Id., at 9, ¶25.

       California does not contend that, having applied for a state permit, the United States is estopped from asserting its claim to ownership of the disputed land. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6. Such an argument is foreclosed by United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 39-40 (1947) (footnote omitted): “[0]fficers who have no authority at all to dispose of Government property cannot by their conduct cause the Government to lose its valuable rights by their acquiescence, laches, or failure to act.” See also United States v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 31-32 (1940); Utah v. United States, 284 U. S. 534, 545-546 (1932).

       In May 1978, California transmitted a proposed permit to the United States to allow construction of the watchtower. See Corps Report, Exhibit F. A few days later, the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior formally advised the Coast Guard and the California Commission that the United States claimed the disputed acreage as accretion. Letter of June 5, 1978, attached to Corps Report, Exhibit G. The proposed permit was never executed.

       Disputes between a State and the United States over ownership of property are fully within our original jurisdiction over cases in “which a State shall be Party,” Art. Ill, §2, cl. 2. Although our jurisdiction over this matter is concurrent with that of the district courts, California v. Arizona, 440 U. S. 59, 65 (1979); 28 U. S. C. § 1251(b)(2), we have previously indicated that coastal boundary disputes are appropriately brought as original actions in this Court. United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S. 184, 186, n. 2 (1975).
      The United States has waived its immunity to suit in actions brought against it to quiet title to land. 28 U. S. C. § 1346(f). See California v. Arizona, supra, at 65-68.

       California’s claim that Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 672 (1979), determined that there was no “federal common law” of accretion and avulsion, is a misunderstanding of that decision. We said only that “[t]he federal law applied in boundary cases . . . does not necessarily furnish the appropriate rules to govern” a case not involving a boundary dispute. Too much is also read into dictum in Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U. S. 363, 380-381, n. 8 (1977), taking issue with the dissent’s meaning of the term “federal common law.”

       All participating Justices joined except Justice Stewart, who concurred on grounds that the State’s claim to the property constituted a taking without compensation. He rejected the majority’s application of federal law to the question. Justice Marshall took no part in the case.

       The equal-footing principle holds that all States admitted to the Union possess the same rights and sovereignty as the original 13 States. Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 229 (1845); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 26, 30 (1894).

       The majority opinion in Corvallis appears to recognize that its rule does not extend to land remaining in federal hands:
      “ ‘We hold the true principle to be this, that whenever the question in any Court, state or federal, is, whether a title to land which had once been property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to these laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation; so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States.’” 429 U. S., at 377 (quoting Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 517 (1839); emphasis added by Corvallis Court).

       In relevant part, § 5(a) of the Act, 62 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1313(a), excepts from the grant to the States
      “all tracts or parcels of land together with all accretions thereto,. . . title to which has been lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States . . . and ... all lands expressly retained by or ceded to the United States when the State entered the Union . . . .”
      Although “accretions” are expressly mentioned only in connection with federal “acquired lands,” accretions to retained lands should be similarly excepted from the grant to the States. Former Solicitor General Cox, in an opinion approved by the Attorney General, explained:
      “There can be no doubt that Congress intended each of the various categories of lands excepted by section 5(a) to include accretions. The terms of section 5(a) make this clear. The customary rights of landowners are set forth in full in the first of the several exceptions listed in section 5(a). Thus, it speaks of ‘all tracts or parcels of land together with all accretions thereto, resources therein, or improvements thereon . . . Each of the other exceptions speaks simply of ‘all lands.’ Obviously, the more comprehensive word ‘lands’ was used instead of Tracts or parcels of land’ and the explicit reference to accretions, resources and improvements was omitted in order to avoid repetition. There is no reasonable basis for any other conclusion. Congress would not have limited its exceptions of ‘all accretions thereto, resources therein, or improvements thereon’ to lands ‘lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States’ from any State or its grantees and then denied them where the lands were ‘expressly retained’ or ‘acquired by the United States by eminent domain proceedings, purchase, cession, gift, or otherwise in a proprietary capacity. . . .’ ” 42 Op. Atty. Gen. 241, 264 (1963).

       In United States v. California, O. T. 1951, No. 6, Orig., California argued that the “Court should adopt the federal rule that accretions formed by gradual and imperceptible degrees even though induced by artificial structures accrue to the owner of the adjoining land.” Brief in Relation to Report of Special Master 90. California suggested “ample reasons why [the] exceptional California view should not be extended and applied in determining the boundaries of the marginal sea off California.” Id., at 91. Those reasons included the fact that the California rule is contrary to that adopted by courts of most other States, that the application of state law would lead to varying results in different States, and that the California rule was devised for wholly inapplicable reasons.

       See also Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S., at 273-274; United States v. California, 381 U. S. 139, 145-148 (1965); United States v. Louisiana, 389 U. S. 155, 156-157 (1967); Texas Boundary Case, 394 U. S. 1, 2 (1969); United States v. Maine, 420 U. S. 515, 524-526 (1975); United States v. Louisiana, 446 U. S. 253, 256, 268 (1980).

       For the same reasons, we reject California’s alternative theory that the equal-footing doctrine vests title in the State to all lands that ever were tidelands. California argues that as deposition occurred on submerged land, these areas went to a tideland phase — vesting title in the State— before eventually emerging as uplands. Federal law governs the scope of title initially vested by the equal-footing doctrine; at most, this argument suggests a different federal rule should apply to former tidelands. The sugr gestión has little to recommend it. Even leaving aside the concerns expressed in text, we see no reason for an exceptional rule to apply to land that once was, but no longer is, tideland. Moreover, implementation of the rule would require plotting the high- and low-water lines at all intervening times between statehood and the present.

       The word “made” was inserted into the provision in a bill introduced by Congressman Walter. H. R. 8137, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., §2(a)(2) (1950). The Report on that measure describes it as “in substance, the same” as earlier proposals omitting the term. H. R. Rep. No. 2078, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1950). Throughout Congress’ consideration of the bill there was no comment on the “made” land provision. No Member of either House ever suggested that § 1301(a)(3) covered accretions that were attributable to artificial works. Against this background, we find no significance in the two casual references by Robert Moses and Senator Daniel to naturally formed accretions as “made.” Hearings on S. J. Res. 13 et al. before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 158 (1953) (remarks of Robert Moses); id., at 193-194 (remarks of Sen. Daniel).

       The interpretive opinion rendered by former Solicitor General Cox, while including naturally formed islands within the “made” language of § 2(a)(3), rejects the suggestion that accretion to the mainland, whether or not directly attributable to artificial causes, is included in the Submerged Lands Act grant to the States. 42 Op. Atty. Gen., at 259-265, 266-267. We express no opinion on the Act’s treatment of naturally formed islands in the marginal sea.