In the United States v. Florida et al., 1976, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico between federal and state jurisdictions. The case arose when both Florida and Alabama claimed jurisdiction over submerged lands rich in oil deposits that extended more than three miles from their coastlines into the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S government contested these claims, arguing that it had exclusive rights to these areas under international law principles for continental shelf resources management. The court ruled in favor of the U.S government based on historical precedents set by previous cases such as United States v. Louisiana (1960) and United States v. Texas (1950). It held that states' seaward boundaries extend only three geographical miles from their coastlines unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress, beyond which lies federal jurisdiction. This decision reaffirmed federal authority over offshore natural resources located beyond state maritime borders, ensuring uniformity in managing these assets across different regions while preventing potential conflicts among states regarding resource exploitation rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Florida et al., 1976, argued that the majority's decision to grant submerged lands and natural resources within a marine league (three geographical miles) from its coastline to the federal government was incorrect. The dissenters believed this ruling contradicted previous court decisions which had recognized state sovereignty over these areas. They contended that states should have control over their adjacent waters up to three nautical miles out from their coastlines, as established by international law at the time of each state's admission into the Union. Furthermore, they asserted that Congress did not intend for Submerged Lands Act (SLA) grants to be limited by later changes in international law when it passed legislation granting coastal states rights over offshore lands and resources.