In the 1933 case United States v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over ownership of submerged lands and mineral rights off the coast of Louisiana. The state claimed that it owned these lands under its own laws and constitution, while the federal government argued that they were part of the public domain controlled by Congress under provisions in the Constitution relating to navigable waters and commerce. The court ruled in favor of Louisiana, holding that states have title to offshore lands within their historic boundaries extending three miles out from shore (the "three-mile limit"). This decision had significant implications for oil drilling operations in coastal areas.

The dissenting opinion in the case of UNITED STATES et al. v. LOUISIANA et al., 1933, argued that the federal government did not have exclusive rights over submerged lands and waters three nautical miles from a state's coastline. The justices contended that these areas should be considered part of the adjacent states rather than under federal control as they were historically used by states for various purposes such as fishing or navigation before becoming part of United States territory. They believed that when each state joined the Union, it retained its sovereignty over these lands unless expressly surrendered to Congress which was not done in this case. Therefore, according to them, Louisiana had rightful claim over these disputed territories and their valuable resources like oil deposits instead of being controlled by Federal Government through Submerged Lands Act (SLA) 1953.