The Supreme Court case United States of America v. State of Alaska, 1991 revolved around a dispute over the ownership and control of submerged lands off the coast of Alaska. The U.S federal government claimed that it had retained title to these lands when it admitted Alaska as a state in 1959, while the state argued that they were entitled to them under the Submerged Lands Act (SLA) and Equal Footing Doctrine. The court ruled in favor of Alaska for most parts but also held some areas as federally controlled. It found that Glacier Bay was part of Alaska's inland waters at the time of statehood, thus belonged to the state under SLA; however, certain enclaves within Alexander Archipelago did not meet criteria for being classified as inland waters hence remained federal property. For marine leagues issue from coastline baseline points along Alaskan panhandle’s outer coast, court agreed with US' contention using international law principles rather than domestic common law rules.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. State of Alaska, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to grant submerged lands and related waters to Alaska was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases involving other states. He contended that this inconsistency could lead to confusion and potential disputes in future cases concerning ownership of submerged lands. Furthermore, he expressed concern over the implications of granting such extensive maritime territory to a single state, suggesting it could disrupt federal control over valuable resources and potentially infrive upon international law principles regarding territorial waters. Ultimately, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of both historical precedent and legislative intent behind relevant laws governing coastal state boundaries.