In the United States v. California case of 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, asserting its paramount rights over submerged lands and resources off California's coast. The dispute arose when both state and federal governments claimed ownership over these offshore areas rich with oil reserves. The State of California argued that it had historical claims to these territories dating back to its admission into the Union in 1850; however, the court rejected this argument stating that upon entering Union status, states ceded their coastal waters beyond a three-mile limit to federal control under international law principles at that time. This decision was significant as it set a precedent for future cases involving disputes between state and federal jurisdiction over offshore resources.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. California, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to grant ownership of submerged lands and three-mile belt along California’s coast to the federal government was a misinterpretation of history and law. He contended that states have traditionally held these rights since their admission into the Union, with no explicit constitutional provision transferring them to federal control. He further noted that Congress had never attempted to claim such authority until this case arose, suggesting it did not originally intend for such power over coastal lands. Moreover, he pointed out potential negative implications on state sovereignty due to this ruling as it could lead other states losing similar rights without clear legal basis or historical precedent.