You can read the full court finding here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DinosaurFossils-MontSC.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp

You can read the full court finding here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DinosaurFossils-MontSC.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Di... (linked from the article) The concurring opinion delves into the common and dictionary definitions of the word "mineral" for the purposes of mineral rights and finds that fossils, in general, are not valuable because of their mineral content, so they should not fall under mineral rights laws. The dissenting opinion cites previous cases the same court had handled in mineral rights disputes and further notes that the legislature had already passed a law clarifying fossil rights with the exception to any fossils currently involved in court cases, so the question at hand was whether this particular fossil was considered a mineral under Montana law. The dissenting opinion also points out that diamonds, composed entirely of carbon, pass the ruling's "rare and exceptional" test for value, despite being composed of something that's neither rare nor valuable. So why are these fossils being treated differently from diamonds? As a fossil nerd I'm glad the ruling landed the way it did, but as a totally-ignorant-of-jurisprudence-layman, the dissenting opinion is more compelling and seems better written. Since it was a 4-3 decision I was a little curious about the political leanings of the justices, but that data doesn't appear to be available.