BedRoc Limited had removed sand and gravel from lands obtained under the Pittman Act, and the United States, the respondent, argued those were reserved to the U.S. Government under that law.

Two justices joined John P. Stevens' dissenting opinion, that relied on legislative history and a previous decision of the Supreme Court.

[3] In 1995, BedRoc Limited, LLC bought the land, and continued to remove sand and gravel under an interim agreement with the Department of the Interior.

Under the agreement, BedRoc Limited had to place money in escrow from the sale of each cubic yard of sand and gravel that the company removed, pending a final resolution.

The Interior Board of Land Appeals upheld the decision by the BLM in 1997, relying on the legislative history of the Pittman Act and on Congress' intent.

[5] On May 24, 1999, Justice Philip Martin Pro of the Court decided that sand and gravel were "valuable minerals" reserved to the American government under the Pittman Act.

The Court argued sand and gravel were minerals, and decided they were valuable under the Pittman Act based on Congress' intent and on debates.

The three-judge panel consisting of Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, and Richard C. Tallman argued on November 7, 2002, and affirmed the decision by the District Court.

The concurring opinion acknowledged the emphasis on valuable was unjust, while saying the word "mineral" itself includes the requirement of commercial purpose as was decided in Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc.

According to the majority, the Court had to focus on the meaning of the law when it was enacted, and it asked itself "whether the sand and gravel found in Nevada were commonly regarded as "valuable minerals" in 1919".

The majority said it was undeniable that "common sand and gravel could not constitute a locatable "valuable mineral deposit" under the General Mining Act".

Furthermore, by deciding in favor of the plaintiff, the Court left its principle that "land grants are construed favorably to the Government... and if there are doubts they are reserved for the Government, not against it", which it called an "established rule" in Wat v. Western Nuclear, Inc.[12] Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, that was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Thomas agreed with the majority opinion that according to common sense and the statutory context sand and gravel could not be used for commercial purposes when the Pittman Act was passed in 1919.

Stevens criticized the majority opinion for ignoring the fact that Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. already stated that a substance must be valuable to be a mineral.

Stevens criticized the majority opinion for not using legislative history in order to find the Congress' original intent, which could result into decisions based on personal preference.