In the United States v. Florida et al., 1959, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining which entity had rightful jurisdiction over a large area of submerged land off the coast of Florida. The State of Florida claimed that it held rights to this territory based on historic precedent and its status as a coastal state. However, the federal government argued that it should have control due to national interests such as defense and commerce. In its decision, the court sided with the federal government stating that they hold paramount rights in regards to these lands for purposes related to navigation, flood control and water power development among others. This case set an important precedent regarding offshore boundaries between states and federal waters.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Florida et al., 1959 case argued that the majority's decision to grant exclusive jurisdiction over submerged lands and waters extending seaward up to three geographical miles from its coastline was inconsistent with international law principles. The dissenters believed that this ruling contradicted established precedents, which recognized a nation’s sovereignty only up to one marine league (approximately three nautical miles) off its coast. They also expressed concerns about potential implications for foreign relations, as other nations might interpret this decision as an assertion of American territorial expansionism. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of historical documents and treaties used to justify their conclusion, arguing these sources did not provide clear evidence supporting such extensive maritime boundaries under U.S control.