In the 1916 case United States of America ex rel. The State of Louisiana v. Hon. George Whitfield Jack, Judge of United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between federal and state jurisdiction over lands submerged under navigable waters within state boundaries. The State of Louisiana had granted certain rights to these lands to private parties who then leased them for oil exploration purposes; however, it was later discovered that some parts were actually owned by the U.S government according to an earlier survey map used when admitting Louisiana into the Union in 1812. When litigation arose regarding ownership and leasing rights, a federal judge issued an injunction preventing further drilling until ownership could be determined - this decision was challenged by both sides claiming exclusive jurisdiction over these disputed areas. The Supreme Court held that while states generally have authority over their internal affairs including land use decisions within their borders (under principles known as "police powers"), they cannot interfere with or obstruct valid exercises of power by Congress or other branches under Constitution's Supremacy Clause which gives precedence to federal law where conflicts arise between two levels' laws/regulations/rules etc., thus affirming lower court's ruling pending final determination on merits at trial level.

In the dissenting opinion for United States of America ex rel. The State of Louisiana v. Hon. George Whitfield Jack, Judge of United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana (1916), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a writ of mandamus sought by the state against federal judge George W. Jack who had issued an injunction preventing enforcement of a state law regulating oil production on private lands within its borders. Holmes argued that while he agreed that mandamus should be used sparingly and only in extreme cases where there is no other adequate remedy available, this case met those criteria because it involved an issue between two sovereigns - the U.S government and a state government - over their respective powers under our constitutional system. He believed that when such fundamental issues are at stake, courts should not hesitate to use all tools at their disposal including extraordinary remedies like mandamus to resolve them promptly and definitively rather than leaving them hanging indefinitely or until they can be resolved through ordinary litigation processes which could take years if not decades.