In United States v. Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court considered a dispute between the United States and the State of Louisiana over the ownership of certain submerged lands in the Gulf of Mexico. The United States argued that the submerged lands were part of the public domain and belonged to the United States. Louisiana argued that the submerged lands were part of the state's territory and belonged to the state. The Supreme Court held that the submerged lands belonged to the United States. The Court reasoned that the United States had acquired the submerged lands by virtue of its sovereignty over the territory, and that the submerged lands were part of the public domain and belonged to the United States. The Court also held that the United States had the right to control and regulate the use of the submerged lands, and that the state of Louisiana had no right to interfere with the United States' control and regulation of the submerged lands. The Court's decision in United States v. Louisiana established that the United States had the right to control and regulate the use of submerged lands in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the state of Louisiana had no right to interfere with the United States' control and regulation of the submerged lands. The decision also established that the submerged lands belonged to the United States and were part of the public domain.

In United States v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not the state of Louisiana had a valid claim to certain lands in dispute between it and the federal government. The majority opinion held that Louisiana did not have a valid claim because its title to those lands was based on an unconstitutional act passed by Congress in 1812. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding Congress' unconstitutionality, he believed that there were other grounds for upholding Louisiana's title to these disputed lands which should be considered before denying them outright. He argued further that if any party could establish their right to such land through legal means then they should be allowed access regardless of how it came into their possession originally. In his view, justice demanded as much and would serve both parties better than simply ruling against one side without considering all available evidence first.