In the United States of America v. State of Alaska (1999), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over submerged lands off the coast of Alaska. The case centered around whether certain bodies of water were considered "inland waters," and thus state property, or "territorial sea," which would be federally controlled. The court held that some areas claimed by Alaska, including parts of Glacier Bay and Skagway Harbor, were inland waters under U.S law but others like Yakutat Bay did not qualify as such due to their geographical characteristics. Therefore, these areas remained federal property because they are part of territorial sea or high seas according to international law standards for determining maritime boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for United States of America v. State of Alaska, the justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of the Submerged Lands Act (SLA). The dissent argued that Congress intended to grant states ownership over submerged lands within their boundaries up to three geographical miles from their coastlines under SLA. They contended that this should include all bodies of water, not just those seaward or ocean-facing as interpreted by the majority. Furthermore, they believed that any ambiguity in defining 'coastline' or 'inland waters' should be resolved in favor of state sovereignty rather than federal control. Therefore, according to them, Alaska should have been granted title over submerged lands beneath certain disputed areas such as bays and rivers which were classified as inland waters by a lower court but reclassified as part of Outer Continental Shelf by Supreme Court's decision.