Constitution

Article IV, Section 3: New States and Federal Property

Section 3 lets Congress admit new states, bars carving states without consent, and gives Congress power over federal territory and property.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

In plain English

Clause 1: the Admissions Clause. Congress may admit new states to the Union. No state may be formed within another state, and no state may be created by joining states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures concerned and of Congress. That is how West Virginia, formed from Virginia in 1863, was admitted.

Clause 2: the Territory and Property Clause. Congress may "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Congress governs the territories and manages federal lands, such as national parks and forests. The final phrase protects claims of the United States and of particular states from being prejudiced by the Constitution.

The clause leaves unanswered how territories become states. Congress decides, and every state admitted since the original thirteen has come in by act of Congress.

What the Founders said

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the Confederation Congress while the Convention met, had set the pattern: territories would be governed temporarily and admitted as states on an equal footing. The Constitution gave that power to Congress.

In Federalist No. 43, Madison explained the clause. He wrote that the power to admit new states was necessary and that a prohibition on dividing states without consent protected the existing states' territorial integrity. The Property Clause was defended as a necessary power over public lands, which were then a major national asset.

Some delegates feared that new western states would dilute the original states' influence. The final text left admission to Congress, and the Northwest Ordinance's guarantee of equal standing for new states became the American practice.

How the courts have read it

  • Scott v. Sandford (1857): the Court held that Congress lacked power to prohibit slavery in federal territories; the decision is widely regarded as among the worst in the Court's history and was nullified by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
  • Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (1845): new states enter the Union on an equal footing with the original states.
  • Texas v. White (1869): the Union is indestructible; Texas's secession ordinance was void.
  • Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976): the Property Clause gives Congress "complete power" over federal lands, including power to protect wildlife on them.
  • Coyle v. Smith (1911): Congress cannot impose a condition on admission, such as the location of a state capital, that would deprive a new state of equal sovereignty.
  • Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016) and Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust (2016): the Court addressed the status of Puerto Rico under the Territory Clause.

Why it matters now

The Admissions Clause is the reason the Union has grown from thirteen states to fifty, and it is why statehood is a decision of the people's representatives in Congress, not of courts or executive order. Questions about Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and other territories belong in the same place.

The Property Clause drives a continuing debate in the West. The federal government owns roughly a quarter of the nation's land, and about half of the land in several western states. Whether that arrangement fits the principle of equal footing, and whether more of it should pass into state or private hands, is a serious question that conservatives, including many Westerners, ask.

Both clauses also remind us that federalism is not static. The Constitution anticipated expansion and gave Congress the power to manage it, subject to the principle that every new state arrives as an equal.

Latest on this topic