In the 1974 case United States v. Florida, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining jurisdiction over a large area of submerged land off the coast of Florida. The state claimed ownership based on its historic boundaries, while the federal government argued that it had authority due to international law and policy considerations related to offshore oil and gas development. The court ruled in favor of the U.S., stating that under principles established by previous cases such as United States v. California (1947), United States v. Louisiana (1950) and United States v Texas (1950), coastal states did not have rights beyond three geographical miles from their coastline into what is considered marginal sea or open ocean areas; these belonged to federal jurisdiction instead for purposes like defense or commerce regulation among others.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Florida (1974) argued that the majority's decision to award submerged lands and resources off its coast to the federal government, rather than to individual states, was inconsistent with previous court rulings on similar issues. The dissenters believed that this ruling contradicted a fundamental principle of American law: namely, that powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution are reserved for individual states or citizens. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on state economies and sovereignty rights due to loss of control over valuable natural resources located within their territorial waters. Furthermore, they disagreed with how the majority interpreted international laws regarding maritime boundaries and continental shelf rights; arguing instead for an interpretation more favorable towards state interests.