In the case of State of Louisiana v. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior in 1908, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a state could claim ownership over land submerged under navigable waters within its borders. The dispute arose when Louisiana claimed that it owned lands beneath Lake Borgne and other bodies of water within its boundaries which were sold by the federal government to private parties without their consent. The court ruled against Louisiana, stating that upon entering into union with other states, all rights to such lands are surrendered unless expressly reserved in their constitution or an act admitting them into union. Therefore, these submerged lands belonged to the United States as they had never been granted to any state nor reserved for use by any particular state at time of admission into Union.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Louisiana v. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision that allowed federal control over navigable waters within a state’s borders. He argued that this was an infringement on states' rights and contrary to principles established by previous court decisions. Harlan believed that once a territory became a state, it gained full sovereignty over its internal affairs including navigable waters within its boundaries unless specifically withheld by Congress during admission into Union. He contended that there was no constitutional or legal basis for federal government to retain control over these resources after statehood had been granted. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of such power by federal authorities which could lead to unjust treatment towards individual states.