In the 1992 case United States of America v. State of Louisiana, et al., also known as the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over offshore boundary lines among several states and the federal government. The controversy arose from differing interpretations of historical boundaries in relation to modern-day understanding of continental shelf limits. The court ruled that submerged lands off these coastal states' shores belonged to those respective states up until three geographical miles out into sea (the traditional limit), but beyond this point they were considered federal property under Submerged Lands Act (SLA). This decision clarified jurisdictional rights between state governments and U.S. Federal Government for purposes such as natural resource extraction or maritime law enforcement.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. State of Louisiana case argued that the majority's decision to use an equidistant line to determine boundary disputes between states was not consistent with historical precedent or international law. The dissenters believed that such a method oversimplified complex geographical and political issues, potentially leading to unfair outcomes for individual states. They also expressed concern about the potential implications of this ruling on future interstate disputes, suggesting it could set a dangerous precedent by encouraging litigation over negotiation and compromise. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant federal statutes and treaties, arguing these legal texts did not support an automatic preference for equidistance in boundary determinations.