In the United States of America v. State of Alaska (1996), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, asserting its ownership over submerged lands along Alaska's Arctic Coast. The case arose from a dispute between the U.S. and Alaska regarding who had rightful claim to these lands under three bodies of water: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Arctic Ocean. The court held that these areas were not "inland waters" but rather "territorial seas," thus falling under federal jurisdiction according to Submerged Lands Act (SLA) which grants coastal states rights only over inland or navigable waters up to three miles from their coastlines. This decision was significant as it determined control over potential oil reserves and other natural resources found beneath those contested areas.

In the dissenting opinion for United States of America v. State of Alaska, 1996, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant submerged lands and related waters to Alaska was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases. The dissenting justices believed that these areas should be considered federal property under the Submerged Lands Act (SLA) because they are navigable waters used for interstate commerce. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "inland water" in relation to Cook Inlet and other Alaskan bodies of water, arguing that this definition had been too broadly applied by the majority. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential environmental implications if states were given control over such large areas of submerged land without sufficient oversight or regulation from federal agencies.