The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA et al., 1979, revolved around the dispute over offshore mineral rights in the Gulf of Mexico between the federal government and several coastal states including Louisiana. The court was asked to determine whether these states or the U.S. Federal Government had jurisdiction over these resources located beyond three geographical miles from each state's coastline but within their historic boundaries extending seaward up to three marine leagues (approximately nine nautical miles). The court ruled that under both domestic and international law, a nation's territorial sea extends only three geographical miles from its coastlines unless it has historically claimed more and its claim has been recognized by other nations. Therefore, all submerged lands—and their valuable oil deposits—beyond this limit belong not to individual states but rather are owned by the federal government.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Louisiana et al., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the federal government, arguing that there were still unresolved factual issues. He contended that it was not clear whether Congress intended to include submerged lands within a state's boundaries when it passed legislation admitting new states into the Union. Furthermore, he argued that historical practice and understanding supported Louisiana’s claim over these lands as they had been exercising jurisdiction over them without objection from Federal Government until 1945. Therefore, according to him, this case should have gone through a full trial instead of being decided by summary judgment.