Dissenting opinion BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States

justice john p. stevens

justice john p. stevens wrote dissenting opinion, joined justices david souter , ruth bader ginsburg. stevens said majority opinion depended entirely on word valuable , , rejected emphasis. said reservation of pittman underground water act meant same of stock-raising homestead act (srha).

stevens called highly unlikely congress meant make distinction between reservation of pittman act , 1 of srha, illogical congress have wanted reservation sand , gravel in lands covered srha, not sand , gravel in lands covered pittman act. besides, stevens referred house committee report said section 8 of pittman act contained same reservation of minerals srha. stevens criticized majority opinion ignoring fact watt v. western nuclear, inc. stated substance must valuable mineral. moreover, said valuable minerals , minerals meant synonymous, pittman act contains phrase valuable minerals twice , words minerals , mineral without word valuable 8 times.

stevens did not rule out possibility majority opinion in watt v. western nuclear, inc. misinterpreted congress intention, said there no reason choose assessment of congress intention on old one. stevens criticized majority opinion not using legislative history in order find congress original intent, result decisions based on personal preference. majority argued looking @ legislative history unnecessary because of clear language of pittman act.