In the case of Secretary of the Interior et al. v. California et al., 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law takes precedence over state law in determining whether offshore oil and gas leases can be granted without a thorough environmental review under state laws. The State of California argued that it had authority to regulate these activities based on its own coastal management program approved by the federal government under Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). However, the court held that while CZMA requires states' participation in decision-making process for offshore leasing, it does not give them veto power or require compliance with their environmental standards before granting such leases. This ruling affirmed supremacy of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides exclusive jurisdiction to federal government over seabed and subsoil beyond three-mile limit from coastlines.

In the dissenting opinion for Secretary of the Interior v. California, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that Congress intended to give states a role in managing offshore resources when it passed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). He disagreed with the majority's interpretation that OCSLA only required federal consultation with states on environmental matters and not leasing decisions. According to him, this narrow reading was inconsistent with both legislative history and statutory language. Furthermore, he pointed out that giving states more control would not necessarily lead to less oil development but could result in better planning and management of offshore resources. Thus, he believed that California should have been allowed input into federal leasing decisions off its coast under OCSLA.