asarco
kadish
argued
february
decided
may
among
things
new
enabling
act
granted
arizona
certain
lands
excluding
mineral
lands
trust
support
public
schools
provided
granted
lands
sold
leased
except
upon
compliance
certain
conditions
regarding
advertising
bidding
appraisal
arizona
incorporated
conditions
article
constitution
held
original
mineral
land
exclusion
inapplicable
lands
known
mineral
time
grant
wyoming
congress
passed
jones
act
extending
terms
original
grant
encompass
mineral
lands
enabling
act
also
amended
clarify
procedures
leasing
granted
lands
specific
purposes
latter
amendment
expressly
extinguished
restrictions
leases
granted
lands
development
hydrocarbon
substances
arizona
law
governing
mineral
leases
state
lands
require
lands
advertised
appraised
leased
full
appraised
value
rev
stat
ann
respondents
individual
taxpayers
state
teachers
association
brought
suit
state
land
department
others
seeking
declaration
void
ground
comply
provisions
arizona
constitution
requesting
appropriate
injunctive
relief
petitioners
mineral
lessees
state
school
lands
intervened
defendants
trial
upheld
statute
state
reversed
ruling
unconstitutional
invalid
pertains
nonhydrocarbon
mineral
leases
remanded
case
trial
inter
alia
enter
judgment
declaring
invalid
consider
relief
might
appropriate
held
judgment
affirmed
affirmed
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
iii
iv
concluding
jurisdiction
review
decision
pp
arizona
issued
final
judgment
within
meaning
despite
fact
remanded
case
trial
determine
appropriate
relief
remand
trial
federal
question
whether
past
current
leases
valid
since
respondents
appeal
withdrew
request
accounting
payment
sums
due
past
leases
addition
trial
actions
affect
state
ruling
invalid
thus
judgment
comes
within
two
exceptions
finality
requirement
set
cox
broadcasting
cohn
federal
issue
conclusive
outcome
proceedings
federal
questions
come
adjudicated
state
remaining
issues
give
rise
federal
question
pp
state
issued
judgment
interpreting
federal
law
case
plaintiffs
original
action
lacked
standing
sue
principles
governing
federal
courts
may
exercise
jurisdiction
certiorari
judgment
causes
direct
specific
concrete
injury
parties
petition
review
long
requisites
article
iii
case
controversy
also
met
petitioners
possess
standing
invoke
authority
since
alleged
decision
poses
serious
immediate
threat
leases
continuing
validity
injury
traced
state
erroneous
interpretation
federal
statutes
injury
redressed
favorable
decision
moreover
requisites
case
controversy
met
since
parties
remain
adverse
judgment
altered
tangible
legal
rights
inappropriate
vacate
judgment
ground
respondents
lacked
federal
standing
brought
suit
initially
remand
appropriate
proceedings
since
course
render
nugatory
state
proceedings
effect
imposing
federal
standing
requirements
state
courts
whenever
adjudicate
federal
law
issues
whereas
established
traditions
decisions
recognize
state
courts
bound
article
iii
yet
within
power
proper
role
render
binding
judgments
issues
subject
review
also
inappropriate
simply
order
dismissal
leaving
petitioners
free
bring
declaratory
judgment
action
federal
raising
claims
since
disposition
likely
defeat
normal
preclusive
effects
state
judgment
ground
conclusions
federal
law
subject
federal
review
course
also
represent
unnecessary
partial
inroad
doctrine
construction
barring
direct
review
lower
federal
courts
decision
reached
highest
state
district
columbia
appeals
feldman
rooker
fidelity
trust
particularly
since
petitioners
already
presented
case
controversy
justiciable
federal
standards
pp
decision
based
adequate
independent
state
ground
defeat
review
federal
issue
although
state
opinion
mentioned
state
constitution
several
times
directed
trial
declare
unconstitutional
discussion
focused
solely
federal
statutes
without
ever
mentioning
state
constitution
apart
enabling
act
moreover
state
explicitly
considered
bound
decisions
adopt
plaintiffs
construction
described
article
state
constitution
simply
rescript
enabling
act
thus
opinion
references
state
constitution
merely
reflect
holding
rests
state
interpretation
federal
law
divorce
state
constitutional
issue
questions
pp
section
invalid
nonhydrocarbon
mineral
leases
since
sale
lease
mineral
lands
granted
arizona
federal
statutes
must
substantially
conform
mandatory
requirements
set
enabling
act
pp
grant
lands
enabling
act
conditioned
statute
clear
express
language
upon
specific
requirements
leasing
selling
lands
petitioners
reliance
neel
barker
proposition
since
mineral
lands
originally
exempt
grant
enabling
act
provisions
apply
lands
later
determined
mineral
nature
flawed
two
respects
first
neel
take
account
decision
wyoming
supra
unknown
mineral
lands
within
grant
second
since
lands
within
grant
regarded
unburdened
mandatory
conditions
pp
lands
granted
jones
act
also
subject
enabling
act
conditions
read
act
language
declares
grant
mineral
lands
thereunder
shall
effect
prior
grants
nonmineral
lands
assuring
title
lands
passed
vested
manner
validity
titles
enabling
act
render
language
redundant
since
statute
subsequently
directly
addresses
vesting
titles
instead
language
achieved
congress
objective
extending
grant
mineral
lands
confirming
title
similarly
though
mineral
lands
may
sold
rights
mine
remove
minerals
may
leased
state
legislature
may
direct
blanket
authority
lease
minerals
whatever
terms
wish
long
leases
proceeds
go
schools
rather
authorizes
regulate
methods
mineral
leases
made
specify
necessary
desirable
additional
terms
long
leases
comply
enabling
act
dispositional
requirements
pp
amendments
enabling
act
confirm
congress
never
removed
original
conditions
contained
act
amendments
congress
reiterated
formulation
lands
leased
certain
purposes
state
legislature
may
direct
may
prescribe
amendment
alter
application
lands
amendment
expressly
extinguished
restrictions
hydrocarbon
leases
mineral
leases
tends
confirm
original
restrictions
remain
force
nonhydrocarbon
leases
pp
justice
kennedy
joined
chief
justice
justice
stevens
justice
scalia
concluded
part
suit
dismissed
outset
federal
rules
apply
since
neither
respondent
taxpayers
respondent
teachers
association
original
plaintiffs
satisfied
requirements
bringing
suit
federal
respondent
taxpayers
assertion
deprived
school
trust
funds
millions
dollars
thereby
resulting
unnecessarily
higher
taxes
respondent
association
allegations
section
imposes
adverse
economic
impact
members
teachers
special
interest
quality
education
state
assert
kind
particular
direct
concrete
personal
injury
necessary
confer
standing
sue
federal
courts
pp
justice
brennan
joined
justice
white
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
agreeing
question
whether
plaintiffs
article
iii
standing
irrelevant
defendants
invoke
federal
courts
authority
concluded
unnecessary
reach
question
standing
plaintiffs
pp
daniel
gribbon
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
william
allen
elizabeth
foote
burton
apker
howard
twitty
david
baron
argued
cause
respondents
brief
kevin
lanigan
christopher
wright
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
brief
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
marzulla
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
robert
klarquist
carol
williams
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
clinton
campbell
contractor
phoenix
brick
yard
calvin
udall
nancy
rowen
alaska
miners
association
et
al
ronald
zumbrun
robin
rivett
brief
amici
curiae
filed
state
california
et
al
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
california
jan
stevens
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
mary
holt
deputy
attorney
general
joined
attorneys
general
respective
follows
jim
jones
idaho
marc
racicot
montana
hubert
humphrey
iii
minnesota
hal
stratton
new
mexico
nicholas
spaeth
north
dakota
robert
henry
oklahoma
roger
tellinghuisen
south
dakota
paul
van
dam
utah
kenneth
eikenberry
washington
joseph
meyer
wyoming
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
except
part
ultimate
question
decision
whether
arizona
statute
governing
mineral
leases
state
lands
void
conform
federal
laws
originally
granted
lands
arizona
first
however
difficult
question
jurisdiction
matter
touches
essential
aspects
proper
relation
state
federal
courts
various
individual
taxpayers
arizona
education
association
represents
approximately
public
schoolteachers
throughout
state
brought
suit
arizona
state
seeking
declaration
state
statute
governing
mineral
leases
state
lands
rev
stat
ann
supp
void
also
seeking
appropriate
injunctive
relief
state
statute
challenged
ground
comply
methods
congress
required
state
follow
lease
sell
lands
granted
new
enabling
act
stat
repeated
arizona
constitution
suit
brought
arizona
land
department
others
asarco
incorporated
current
mineral
lessees
state
school
lands
permitted
intervene
defendants
eventually
trial
certified
case
defendant
class
action
arizona
rule
civil
procedure
defendant
class
consisted
present
future
mineral
lessees
state
lands
trial
upheld
statute
summary
judgment
respondents
original
plaintiffs
appealed
arizona
reversed
dissent
one
justice
ruling
statute
unconstitutional
invalid
pertains
nonhydrocarbon
mineral
leases
kadish
arizona
state
land
remanded
case
trial
instructions
enter
summary
judgment
respondents
enter
judgment
declaring
invalid
consider
relief
might
appropriate
various
mineral
lessees
filed
petition
certiorari
granted
review
ii
may
undertake
consider
whether
state
legislation
authorizing
leases
valid
federal
law
must
rule
whether
jurisdiction
case
parties
amici
raise
three
jurisdictional
issues
substance
required
course
raise
matters
initiative
necessary
legitimate
exercise
judicial
power
confined
statutes
article
iii
constitution
issues
first
whether
judgment
final
second
whether
standing
actual
case
controversy
permits
decision
federal
third
whether
decision
unreviewable
rests
adequate
independent
state
ground
first
jurisdictional
question
whether
arizona
issued
final
judgment
case
granted
plaintiffs
declaratory
judgment
state
law
governing
mineral
leases
invalid
remanded
case
trial
determine
relief
appropriate
amicus
asserts
validity
existing
leases
remains
issue
trial
may
yet
decide
uphold
leases
ground
made
true
value
thus
substantial
conformity
provisions
enabling
act
stat
even
though
leasing
procedures
comply
every
specific
requirement
act
brief
amicus
curiae
hereafter
brief
assertion
correct
judgment
yet
final
within
meaning
lack
jurisdiction
case
correct
respondents
originally
sought
declaratory
judgment
state
law
invalid
injunction
leases
accounting
payment
sums
due
past
leases
withdrew
last
request
appeal
arizona
see
brief
appellant
kadish
arizona
state
land
thus
remand
trial
federal
question
whether
past
current
leases
valid
made
substantial
conformity
terms
enabling
act
course
trial
actions
affect
arizona
ruling
invalid
accordingly
judgment
comes
within
two
exceptions
finality
requirement
set
cox
broadcasting
cohn
federal
issue
conclusive
outcome
proceedings
see
also
duquesne
light
barasch
addition
federal
questions
come
adjudicated
state
remaining
issues
contrary
suggestion
give
rise
federal
question
cox
supra
quoting
radio
station
wow
johnson
second
jurisdictional
issue
theoretical
import
though
infrequent
occurrence
question
whether
federal
standards
case
nonjusticiable
outset
original
plaintiffs
lacked
standing
sue
whether
may
examine
justiciability
stage
arizona
courts
heard
case
proceeded
judgment
judgment
causes
concrete
injury
parties
seek
first
time
invoke
authority
federal
courts
case
contends
case
dismissed
lack
standing
since
neither
respondent
taxpayers
respondent
teachers
association
original
plaintiffs
satisfied
requirements
bringing
suit
federal
outset
essence
question
standing
whether
litigant
entitled
decide
merits
dispute
particular
issues
warth
seldin
although
standing
outer
dimensions
prudential
concept
shaped
decisions
courts
matter
sound
judicial
policy
subject
control
congress
core
becomes
constitutional
question
standing
basic
aspect
one
controlling
elements
definition
case
controversy
article
iii
see
valley
forge
christian
college
americans
separation
church
state
brennan
dissenting
standing
respondents
filed
suit
federal
trial
level
may
resolved
applying
principles
federal
law
question
whether
taxpayers
citizens
sufficient
personal
stake
challenge
laws
general
application
injury
distinct
suffered
general
taxpayers
citizens
covers
old
familiar
ground
ordinary
matter
suits
premised
federal
taxpayer
status
cognizable
federal
courts
taxpayer
interest
moneys
treasury
shared
millions
others
comparatively
minute
indeterminable
effect
upon
future
taxation
payments
funds
remote
fluctuating
uncertain
basis
afforded
judicial
intervention
frothingham
mellon
decided
massachusetts
mellon
indicated
conclusion
may
hold
municipal
taxpayers
shown
peculiar
relation
corporate
taxpayer
municipal
corporation
makes
taxpayer
interest
application
municipal
revenues
direct
immediate
frothingham
supra
citing
crampton
zabriskie
yet
likened
state
taxpayers
federal
taxpayers
thus
refused
confer
standing
upon
state
taxpayer
absent
showing
direct
injury
pecuniary
otherwise
doremus
board
education
hawthorne
showing
made
case
respondent
taxpayers
allege
special
circumstances
exceptions
confer
standing
upon
instead
simply
asserted
arizona
statute
governing
mineral
leases
deprived
school
trust
funds
millions
dollars
thereby
resulting
unnecessarily
higher
taxes
complaint
iii
even
first
part
assertion
correct
however
pure
speculation
whether
lawsuit
result
actual
tax
relief
respondents
prevail
conceivable
money
might
devoted
education
since
education
arizona
financed
solely
school
trust
fund
tr
oral
arg
state
might
reduce
supplement
general
funds
provide
programs
possibility
taxpayers
receive
direct
pecuniary
relief
lawsuit
remote
fluctuating
uncertain
stated
frothingham
supra
consequently
claimed
injury
likely
redressed
favorable
decision
valley
forge
supra
flaw
defeats
claim
teachers
association
standing
bring
suit
originally
federal
association
members
contend
state
law
imposes
adverse
economic
impact
complaint
iv
yet
even
invalidation
state
law
create
increased
revenue
school
trust
funds
near
future
issue
much
disputed
allegations
economic
harm
rest
hypothetical
assumptions
taxpayer
claims
respondents
prevailed
increased
revenues
state
leases
available
maybe
taxes
reduced
maybe
state
reduce
support
sources
money
available
schools
unchanged
even
state
devote
money
schools
follow
increase
teacher
salaries
benefits
policy
decisions
might
made
different
ways
governing
officials
depending
perceptions
wise
state
fiscal
policy
myriad
circumstances
whether
association
claims
economic
injury
redressed
favorable
decision
case
depends
unfettered
choices
made
independent
actors
courts
whose
exercise
broad
legitimate
discretion
courts
presume
either
control
predict
much
less
confidence
concluding
relief
likely
follow
favorable
decision
cases
like
allen
wright
simon
eastern
kentucky
welfare
rights
organization
standing
found
lacking
probable
response
private
individuals
explicit
tax
incentives
judged
uncertain
satisfy
redressability
prong
federal
standing
requirements
petitioners
also
argue
likelihood
redressable
injury
increased
recognized
claims
taxpayers
teachers
association
rest
upon
independent
contingencies
implication
cumulate
probabilities
event
plaintiffs
prevail
either
taxpayers
receiving
direct
relief
increased
revenues
teachers
receiving
indirect
economic
benefit
higher
funding
schools
reply
brief
petitioners
line
reasoning
evokes
two
responses
first
avoid
fundamental
problem
courts
unable
evaluate
assurance
likelihood
decisions
made
certain
way
officials
acting
within
broad
legitimate
discretion
second
doctrine
standing
sue
kind
gaming
device
surmounted
merely
aggregating
allegations
different
kinds
plaintiffs
may
claims
remote
speculative
taken
instead
basic
inquiry
party
seeking
invoke
authority
federal
courts
warth
supra
whether
party
alleges
personal
injury
fairly
traceable
challenged
conduct
likely
redressed
requested
relief
valley
forge
allegations
economic
injury
put
one
side
claims
made
taxpayers
teachers
association
reduce
something
like
association
contention
state
law
undermines
quality
education
arizona
complaint
iv
say
certainty
contention
even
likely
correct
claims
raised
moreover
kind
generalized
grievances
brought
concerned
citizens
consistently
held
cognizable
federal
courts
see
los
angeles
lyons
valley
forge
supra
sierra
club
morton
see
also
schlesinger
reservists
comm
stop
war
richardson
precedents
demonstrate
party
may
establish
standing
raising
claims
noneconomic
injury
see
gladstone
realtors
village
bellwood
trafficante
metropolitan
life
ins
claims
injury
purely
abstract
even
might
understood
lead
psychological
consequence
presumably
produced
observation
conduct
one
disagrees
valley
forge
supra
provide
kind
particular
direct
concrete
injury
necessary
confer
standing
sue
federal
courts
although
members
teachers
association
might
argue
special
interest
quality
education
arizona
special
interest
alone
confer
federal
standing
cf
sierra
club
supra
argument
succeed
distinguishing
members
regard
students
parents
various
citizens
review
discloses
basis
find
respondents
satisfy
requirements
federal
standing
articulated
precedents
follows
suit
dismissed
outset
federal
rule
apply
state
judiciary
chose
different
path
right
took
account
federal
standing
rules
letting
case
go
final
judgment
arizona
courts
result
properly
follows
allocation
authority
federal
system
recognized
often
constraints
article
iii
apply
state
courts
accordingly
state
courts
bound
limitations
case
controversy
federal
rules
justiciability
even
address
issues
federal
law
called
upon
interpret
constitution
case
federal
statute
see
pennell
san
jose
lyons
supra
doremus
secretary
state
md
munson
stevens
concurring
bateman
arizona
rehnquist
chambers
cf
highland
farms
dairy
agnew
although
state
courts
bound
adhere
federal
standing
requirements
possess
authority
absent
provision
exclusive
federal
jurisdiction
render
binding
judicial
decisions
rest
interpretations
federal
law
see
grubb
public
utilities
ohio
indeed
inferior
federal
courts
required
exist
article
iii
supremacy
clause
explicitly
judges
every
state
shall
bound
federal
law
art
vi
cl
question
arises
whether
judgment
rendered
state
courts
circumstances
support
jurisdiction
review
case
juncture
petitioners
allege
specific
injury
stemming
decree
decree
rests
principles
federal
law
petitioners
insist
result
judgment
case
taken
definite
shape
defined
specific
legal
obligation
one
causes
direct
injury
agree
although
respondents
standing
commence
suit
federal
based
allegations
complaint
party
attempting
invoke
federal
judicial
power
instead
petitioners
defendants
case
losing
parties
bring
case
thus
seek
entry
federal
courts
first
time
lawsuit
determine
petitioners
standing
invoke
authority
federal
dispute
presents
justiciable
case
controversy
resolution
petitioners
hold
mineral
leases
granted
state
law
arizona
invalidated
although
accounting
sums
due
leases
remains
issue
particular
case
undisputed
decision
reviewed
poses
serious
immediate
threat
continuing
validity
leases
virtue
holding
granted
improper
procedures
invalid
law
state
proceedings
ended
declaratory
judgment
adverse
petitioners
adjudication
legal
rights
constitutes
kind
injury
cognizable
review
state
courts
see
nashville
wallace
petitioners
faced
actual
threatened
injury
sufficiently
distinct
palpable
support
standing
invoke
authority
federal
warth
petitioners
contend
us
arizona
decision
rests
erroneous
interpretation
federal
statutes
claim
declaratory
judgment
sought
secured
respondents
along
relief
may
flow
ruling
invalid
federal
law
agree
petitioners
reversal
decision
remove
disabling
effects
upon
circumstances
conclude
petitioners
meet
prong
constitutional
standing
requirements
parties
first
invoking
authority
federal
courts
shown
personally
ha
suffered
actual
threatened
injury
result
putatively
illegal
conduct
party
injury
fairly
traced
challenged
action
likely
redressed
favorable
decision
valley
forge
citations
omitted
addition
petitioners
standing
invoke
authority
affected
prudential
limitations
identified
prior
cases
indeed
appears
recognize
force
points
see
brief
light
decision
petitioners
may
standing
invoke
authority
federal
also
conclude
record
shows
existence
genuine
case
controversy
essential
exercise
jurisdiction
tileston
ullman
parties
remain
adverse
valuable
legal
rights
directly
affected
specific
substantial
degree
decision
question
law
wallace
confronted
certainly
parties
attempting
secure
abstract
determination
validity
statute
decision
advising
law
uncertain
hypothetical
state
facts
might
case
example
petitioners
seeking
review
advisory
opinion
rendered
specific
mechanisms
obtaining
hypothetical
ruling
state
state
official
proceedings
judicial
nature
resulted
final
judgment
altering
tangible
legal
rights
proceeding
constitutes
cognizable
case
controversy
cf
summers
although
petitioners
satisfy
requirements
federal
standing
present
actual
case
controversy
decision
contends
showing
insufficient
support
jurisdiction
government
suggests
appropriate
order
dismissal
petitioners
free
bring
declaratory
judgment
action
federal
raising
claims
brief
petitioners
counter
finds
review
judgment
merits
proper
course
vacate
judgment
remand
appropriate
proceedings
tr
oral
arg
done
least
occasions
case
becomes
moot
pending
review
state
see
defunis
odegaard
neither
disposition
appropriate
vacate
judgment
ground
respondents
lacked
federal
standing
brought
suit
initially
disposition
render
nugatory
entire
proceedings
state
courts
clear
effect
impose
federal
standing
requirements
state
courts
whenever
adjudicate
issues
federal
law
judgments
conclusive
parties
result
however
contrary
established
traditions
prior
decisions
recognizing
state
courts
bound
article
iii
yet
within
power
proper
role
render
binding
judgments
issues
federal
law
subject
review
addition
doubt
proper
exercise
authority
vacate
state
judgment
circumstances
unacceptable
paradox
exercise
jurisdiction
confirm
lack
interfere
state
sovereign
power
vacating
judgment
rendered
within
proper
authority
case
one
committed
exclusive
jurisdiction
federal
courts
authority
grant
writ
announce
solely
may
review
case
state
lacked
power
decide
first
instance
merely
dismiss
case
leave
judgment
undisturbed
different
set
problems
ensue
although
judgment
state
issues
federal
law
normally
binds
parties
future
suit
even
suit
brought
separately
federal
occasionally
cautioned
judgment
may
well
bind
parties
state
conclusions
federal
law
subject
federal
review
see
doremus
accept
basis
conclusive
disposition
issue
federal
law
without
review
procedure
constitute
case
controversy
minnesota
national
tea
responsible
assuring
state
courts
final
arbiters
important
issues
federal
constitution
fidelity
nat
bank
trust
kansas
city
swope
proceeding
state
res
judicata
constitutional
rights
asserted
might
asserted
proceeding
eventually
reviewed
predominant
interest
promoted
apparent
exception
normal
preclusion
doctrines
assure
binding
application
federal
law
uniform
ultimately
subject
control
see
richardson
ramirez
may
review
declaratory
judgment
granted
state
conclusion
unnecessarily
permit
state
last
resort
quite
contrary
intention
congress
enacting
invalidate
state
legislation
federal
constitutional
grounds
without
possibility
state
officials
adversely
affected
decision
seeking
review
given
likelihood
dismissal
case
defeat
normal
preclusive
effects
state
judgment
however
effect
impose
federal
standing
requirements
state
sought
render
binding
decision
issues
federal
law
also
denigrate
authority
state
courts
creating
peculiar
anomaly
normal
channels
appellate
review
doctrine
interprets
ordinarily
barring
direct
review
lower
federal
courts
decision
reached
highest
state
authority
vested
solely
district
columbia
appeals
feldman
atlantic
coast
line
locomotive
engineers
rooker
fidelity
trust
urges
proper
course
petitioners
sue
federal
trial
order
readjudicate
issues
determined
proceedings
brief
action
essence
attempt
obtain
direct
review
arizona
decision
lower
federal
courts
represent
partial
inroad
construction
reasons
believe
inappropriate
dismiss
case
stage
disposition
come
cost
much
disrespect
proceedings
judgments
also
require
petitioners
commence
new
action
federal
vindicate
rights
federal
law
even
though
right
present
us
case
controversy
justiciable
federal
standards
cf
wallace
justiciable
controversy
less
modified
procedure
appellant
permitted
present
state
courts
instead
adopt
following
rationale
decision
jurisdictional
point
state
issued
judgment
case
plaintiffs
original
action
standing
sue
principles
governing
federal
courts
may
exercise
jurisdiction
certiorari
judgment
state
causes
direct
specific
concrete
injury
parties
petition
review
requisites
case
controversy
also
met
unmindful
paradox
result
respondents
plaintiffs
prevail
merits
succeeded
obtaining
federal
determination
unavailable
action
filed
initially
federal
nonetheless
although
federal
standing
often
turns
nature
source
claim
asserted
way
depends
merits
claim
warth
rule
adopt
necessary
deference
response
petitioning
parties
seek
forum
redress
real
current
injury
stemming
application
federal
law
therefore
conclude
may
properly
decide
case
petitioners
meet
requirements
federal
standing
valley
forge
parties
first
invoking
authority
federal
courts
case
actual
case
controversy
jurisdictional
bar
review
circumstances
already
granted
review
believe
proper
course
dismiss
case
vacate
judgment
undertake
review
federal
issues
merits
last
threshold
procedural
issue
concerns
possibility
decision
rested
adequate
independent
state
ground
defeat
review
federal
issues
see
fox
film
muller
state
mentioned
state
constitution
several
times
opinion
otherwise
relied
exclusively
federal
law
including
extended
discussion
applicable
federal
statutes
legislative
histories
conclusion
however
arizona
directed
trial
enter
judgment
declaring
unconstitutional
invalid
pertains
nonhydrocarbon
mineral
leases
conclude
opinion
based
adequate
independent
state
ground
discussion
focuses
solely
federal
statutes
state
constitution
never
mentioned
apart
enabling
act
arizona
explicitly
considered
bound
adopt
construction
advanced
plaintiffs
based
prior
decisions
described
article
arizona
constitution
simply
rescript
enabling
act
light
description
references
arizona
constitution
simply
reflect
holding
rests
state
interpretation
federal
law
although
arizona
free
rest
holding
state
constitution
independent
ground
decision
divorce
state
constitutional
issue
questions
federal
law
see
enterprise
irrigation
dist
canal
see
also
enabling
act
fundamental
paramount
law
arizona
quoting
murphy
state
sum
lack
jurisdiction
review
decision
iii
issue
merits
whether
arizona
may
lease
mineral
lands
granted
without
meeting
specific
requirements
imposed
federal
statute
begin
detailed
review
statutes
question
congress
passed
new
enabling
act
stat
authorized
people
territories
form
state
governments
among
provisions
enabling
act
granted
arizona
certain
lands
within
every
township
support
public
schools
congress
provided
however
new
state
hold
granted
lands
trust
subject
specific
conditions
set
act
stat
conditions
granted
lands
sold
leased
except
highest
bidder
public
auction
following
notice
advertisements
two
newspapers
weekly
weeks
leases
term
five
years
less
exempt
advertising
requirement
lands
sold
leased
less
values
set
appraisal
required
statute
proceeds
derived
lands
go
permanent
segregated
fund
interest
principal
spent
support
public
schools
arizona
incorporated
restrictions
proposed
constitution
ariz
art
admitted
union
grant
lands
enabling
act
specifically
excluded
mineral
lands
stat
gave
rise
uncertainty
known
unknown
mineral
lands
lands
minerals
discovered
grant
two
subsequent
decisions
held
exclusion
applied
lands
known
mineral
time
grant
unknown
mineral
lands
granted
act
wyoming
sweet
holdings
turn
spawned
numerous
disputes
whether
lands
known
mineral
time
granted
federal
government
see
work
braffet
title
lands
many
western
doubt
issue
became
difficult
prove
years
passed
accordingly
congress
passed
jones
act
stat
brief
statute
extended
terms
original
grant
lands
western
encompass
mineral
lands
well
congress
also
amended
enabling
act
twice
time
clarify
procedures
leasing
granted
lands
specific
purposes
see
act
june
ch
stat
act
june
stat
arizona
law
governing
leasing
state
mineral
lands
enacted
requires
every
lease
provide
payment
state
lessee
royalty
five
per
cent
net
value
minerals
produced
claim
rev
stat
ann
supp
require
lands
advertised
appraised
leased
require
lands
leased
full
appraised
value
lands
question
granted
arizona
either
terms
enabling
act
jones
act
grant
lands
enabling
act
conditioned
statute
clear
language
upon
specified
requirements
leasing
selling
lands
act
declares
lands
hereby
granted
shall
said
state
held
trust
disposed
whole
part
manner
herein
provided
natural
products
money
proceeds
said
lands
shall
subject
trusts
lands
producing
stat
emphasis
added
disposition
said
lands
money
thing
value
directly
indirectly
derived
therefrom
manner
contrary
provisions
act
shall
deemed
breach
trust
disposition
expressly
stated
null
void
unless
made
substantial
conformity
provisions
act
ibid
requirements
set
forth
act
apply
lands
leaseholds
timber
products
land
ibid
petitioners
cite
neel
barker
standing
proposition
mineral
lands
originally
exempted
congress
grant
made
enabling
act
provisions
sale
lease
granted
lands
apply
lands
later
determined
mineral
nature
proposition
never
tested
federal
flawed
two
respects
first
wyoming
supra
decided
year
mentioned
discussed
neel
held
unknown
mineral
lands
within
grant
made
congress
second
since
lands
granted
authority
enabling
act
regarded
unburdened
mandatory
conditions
consequence
new
mexico
erred
concluding
congress
intend
grant
state
mineral
lands
follows
state
controlled
restricted
said
act
regard
leasing
said
lands
mineral
purposes
lands
granted
act
granted
subject
conditions
lands
granted
jones
act
subject
conditions
brief
enactment
passed
address
continuing
problems
associated
dual
regime
adjudication
title
lands
depend
whether
known
mineral
time
federal
government
granted
indeed
formal
title
act
confirming
territories
title
lands
granted
aid
common
public
schools
stat
jones
act
resolved
problem
dual
regime
simply
extend
ing
prior
grants
lands
embrace
numbered
school
sections
mineral
character
stat
statute
explicitly
stated
grant
numbered
mineral
sections
act
shall
effect
prior
grants
numbered
sections
stat
emphasis
added
petitioners
make
two
points
proper
reading
statute
first
argue
effect
language
intended
assure
title
lands
passed
vested
manner
validity
title
lands
granted
enabling
act
said
nothing
conditions
upon
lands
granted
second
argue
language
jones
act
granted
broad
authority
lease
mineral
deposits
newly
granted
lands
state
state
legislature
may
direct
proceeds
rentals
royalties
therefrom
utilized
support
aid
common
public
schools
stat
according
petitioners
therefore
jones
act
impose
restrictions
mineral
lands
enabling
act
contrary
explicitly
repudiated
restrictions
newly
granted
lands
agree
reading
jones
act
first
suggested
interpretation
effect
language
render
language
redundant
statute
continues
immediately
additional
clause
directly
addresses
vest
ing
titles
numbered
mineral
sections
stat
instead
believe
effect
language
independent
meaning
achieved
congress
stated
objective
extend
ing
grants
encompass
mineral
lands
onfirming
title
lands
stat
second
language
undermine
conclusion
jones
act
extended
coverage
enabling
act
express
restrictions
well
grant
lands
section
says
though
mineral
lands
may
sold
rights
mine
remove
minerals
reserved
state
may
leased
leases
may
undertaken
state
legislature
may
direct
petitioners
read
containing
sole
dispositional
restrictions
newly
granted
lands
read
latter
passage
blanket
authority
lease
minerals
whatever
terms
wish
set
long
proceeds
leases
go
schools
interpretation
suffers
several
defects
begin
offer
comprehensive
understanding
statutory
regime
section
contains
dispositional
restrictions
sale
lease
newly
granted
lands
except
provision
mineral
rights
lands
reserved
state
effect
language
extend
dispositional
restrictions
enabling
act
lands
granted
jones
act
lands
subject
dispositional
restrictions
though
mineral
rights
reserved
inconsistent
view
lands
granted
jones
act
part
school
trust
similarly
state
legislature
may
direct
language
blanket
authority
petitioners
contend
allow
minerals
leased
little
royalty
thus
leave
room
abuses
establishment
school
trust
designed
prevent
perhaps
fundamental
defect
interpretation
urged
petitioners
largely
perpetuate
dual
regime
congress
sought
eliminate
enacting
jones
act
interpretation
restrictions
enabling
act
continue
apply
unknown
mineral
lands
apply
known
mineral
lands
result
example
leases
involved
case
might
proper
jones
act
others
improper
enabling
act
critical
difference
rest
determination
made
future
point
whether
lands
known
mineral
surely
resolution
congress
intended
passed
statute
neither
sensible
appealing
one
addition
state
legislature
may
direct
language
inconsistent
express
restrictions
set
forth
enabling
act
given
preceding
restrictions
sale
minerals
congress
may
thought
necessary
emphasize
leases
subject
novel
limitations
instead
retained
authority
given
conditional
grants
made
enabling
act
thus
agree
language
properly
viewed
authorizing
regulate
methods
mineral
leases
made
specify
additional
terms
leases
thought
necessary
desirable
long
leases
comply
dispositional
requirements
set
forth
enabling
act
see
language
dispense
restrictions
sides
place
great
deal
emphasis
later
amendments
enabling
act
occurred
think
language
original
grants
lands
arizona
decisive
basis
decision
subsequent
amendments
best
illustrative
later
congress
read
original
terms
statute
congress
instance
grant
lands
state
certain
specific
conditions
later
conditions
met
lands
vested
succeed
upsetting
settled
expectations
belated
effort
render
conditions
onerous
congress
relax
conditions
upon
lands
granted
previously
course
see
nothing
later
amendments
suggest
done
instead
later
amendments
wholly
consistent
view
congress
granted
lands
subject
conditions
discussed
previously
never
removed
conditions
amendments
congress
reiterated
formulation
lands
leased
certain
purposes
state
legislature
may
direct
act
june
ch
stat
may
prescribe
act
june
stat
former
amendment
alter
application
lands
products
land
remained
passage
directly
followed
state
legislature
may
direct
language
latter
amendment
altered
application
manner
tends
confirm
interpretation
adopted
expressly
extinguished
advertising
bidding
appraisal
restrictions
upon
leases
lands
exploration
development
production
oil
gas
hydrocarbon
substances
stat
though
upon
leases
purposes
mineral
leases
thus
subsequent
history
statutes
extent
indicates
anything
significance
merely
confirms
original
restrictions
upon
sale
lease
mineral
lands
contained
enabling
act
jones
act
remain
undiminished
force
iv
concern
integrity
conditions
imposed
enabling
act
long
evident
alamo
land
cattle
arizona
conclude
sale
lease
mineral
lands
granted
state
arizona
federal
statutes
must
substantially
conform
mandatory
requirements
set
enabling
act
correct
declaring
rev
stat
ann
supp
invalid
nonhydrocarbon
mineral
leases
judgment
arizona
affirmed
footnotes
none
precedents
cited
parties
none
found
squarely
point
secretary
state
md
joseph
munson
original
defendant
brought
appeal
defend
constitutionality
state
statute
declared
unconstitutional
state
began
evaluating
standing
original
plaintiffs
found
meet
requirements
federal
standing
obviated
inquiry
true
case
revere
massachusetts
general
hospital
found
original
plaintiff
met
requirements
imposed
article
iii
refused
invoke
prudential
limitation
jus
tertii
least
part
avoid
question
leaving
intact
state
judgment
favor
original
plaintiff
purportedly
improper
representative
third
party
constitutional
rights
doremus
board
education
hawthorne
appeal
brought
state
losing
taxpayer
plaintiff
dismissed
instance
party
seeking
invoke
authority
federal
courts
found
lack
standing
true
taxpayer
plaintiffs
case
well
yet
petitioners
injured
parties
seek
invoke
authority
meet
federal
standing
requirements
one
possible
distinction
mineral
leases
leases
lands
purposes
mineral
rights
difficult
appraise
might
make
enabling
act
provisions
less
helpful
setting
recognized
long
ago
rights
subject
valuation
condemnation
proceedings
whatever
difficulties
may
making
appraisals
complete
accuracy
defeat
existence
market
value
mineral
rights
suffice
reason
depart
ordinary
requirements
law
imposes
transactions
montana
warren
reading
jones
act
adopt
may
still
traces
dual
regime
though
minimized
example
might
argued
right
prospect
mine
remove
minerals
unknown
mineral
lands
sold
whereas
rights
known
mineral
lands
since
jones
act
prohibition
regard
limited
lands
additional
grant
made
act
stat
need
decide
case
however
whether
reading
statute
fair
necessary
wake
enactment
jones
act
experience
new
mexico
instructive
contemporaneous
reading
statute
concerned
act
undermined
whatever
basis
might
decision
neel
barker
new
mexico
government
immediately
petitioned
congress
authorize
state
plebiscite
codify
holding
law
response
congress
passed
joint
resolution
effect
joint
resolution
ch
stat
language
resolution
explicitly
permitted
new
mexico
waive
advertising
appraisal
bidding
requirements
mineral
leases
explicit
language
conspicuously
absent
jones
act
decision
lassen
arizona
highway
bearing
issues
raised
case
lassen
held
arizona
obliged
follow
enabling
act
specific
requirements
condemned
land
use
highway
program
seeing
need
read
act
impose
restrictions
transfers
abuses
intended
prevent
likely
occur
trust
may
another
effective
fashion
assured
full
compensation
unlike
public
condemnation
proceedings
however
private
sales
leases
issue
precisely
kinds
transactions
addressed
federal
statutes
ibid
justice
brennan
justice
white
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
join
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
join
part
opinion
disagree
view
expressed
justice
kennedy
opinion
plaintiffs
particularly
arizona
education
association
standing
also
decision
reach
issue
holds
part
question
whether
plaintiffs
article
iii
standing
irrelevant
defendants
invoke
authority
federal
courts
discussion
standing
question
part
therefore
unnecessary
chief
justice
rehnquist
justice
scalia
joins
concurring
part
dissenting
part
join
part
opinion
also
agree
justice
kennedy
conclusion
part
respondents
plaintiffs
failed
show
sort
injury
fact
necessary
satisfy
article
iii
standing
requirements
ante
requirement
tends
assure
legal
questions
presented
resolved
rarified
atmosphere
debating
society
concrete
factual
context
conducive
realistic
appreciation
consequences
judicial
action
valley
forge
christian
college
americans
separation
church
state
absence
standing
disposes
case
requires
dismissal
appeal
doremus
board
education
hawthorne
doremus
dismissed
appeal
state
taxpayers
lacked
standing
says
although
doremus
case
good
law
plaintiffs
lack
standing
lost
state
merits
federal
claim
good
law
plaintiffs
prevailed
merits
federal
question
state
courts
fact
rule
application
necessarily
mean
wrong
least
require
persuasive
justification
persuasive
one
provides
opinion
justifies
result
reaches
saying
judgment
adverse
petitioners
form
injury
supplies
article
iii
standing
difficulty
explanation
petitioners
mineral
lessees
defendants
courts
always
able
show
judgment
adverse
position
injure
real
sense
defect
proceedings
far
article
iii
standing
concerned
proceedings
threaten
injure
petitioners
operation
enforcement
challenged
statute
injure
subsequent
proceedings
state
obviously
cured
defect
one
course
analogize
proceedings
certiorari
commencement
might
called
federal
phase
lawsuit
say
purpose
petitioners
like
plaintiff
filing
suit
federal
district
therefore
petitioners
standing
respondents
concern
us
stage
litigation
certainly
mootness
cases
following
munsingwear
indicate
judgment
entered
lower
federal
longer
present
effect
parties
review
case
direct
vacation
judgment
lower
courts
present
effect
judgment
parties
may
necessary
condition
continuing
federal
jurisdiction
believe
inevitably
sufficient
condition
opinion
makes
much
fact
record
shows
existence
genuine
case
controversy
ante
hese
parties
remain
adverse
ibid
case
law
limiting
federal
standing
depend
conclusion
parties
adverse
genuine
case
controversy
lay
sense
terms
see
warth
seldin
valley
forge
christian
college
americans
separation
church
state
supra
defunis
odegaard
linda
richard
cases
parties
emphatically
adverse
one
another
vigorously
contended
one
another
decided
one
suggested
cases
trumped
friendly
suits
shortcoming
failure
plaintiffs
establish
actual
injury
result
governmental
action
sought
challenge
federal
grounds
considered
cases
merits
required
us
decide
questions
presented
rarified
atmosphere
debating
society
plaintiffs
simply
generalized
grievance
governmental
action
claimed
prohibited
federal
statute
constitution
really
present
case
concerned
fact
applies
doremus
sauce
goose
well
gander
state
courts
remain
free
decide
important
questions
federal
statutory
constitutional
law
without
possibility
review
true
think
rather
unremarkable
proposition
state
courts
render
advisory
decisions
federal
law
binding
force
even
within
state
see
mass
art
lxxxv
amending
massachusetts
constitution
provide
branch
legislature
well
governor
council
shall
authority
require
opinions
justices
judicial
upon
important
questions
law
upon
solemn
occasions
mich
art
either
house
legislature
governor
may
request
opinion
important
questions
law
upon
solemn
occasions
constitutionality
legislation
enacted
law
effective
date
instance
interpretation
federal
law
may
affect
governance
state
thereby
make
people
better
worse
yet
none
decisions
federal
law
reviewable
federal
see
reason
fear
dismissal
present
appeal
lead
legal
landscape
longer
opportunity
review
many
important
decisions
questions
federal
law
therefore
see
reason
bend
article
iii
jurisprudence
shape
avoid
largely
imaginary
problem