In the 1987 case United States of America v. State of Louisiana et al., also known as the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over offshore boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico between federal and state jurisdictions. The issue arose from differing interpretations of historical boundary agreements and laws regarding coastal waters. The court ruled that submerged lands within three geographical miles from each state's coastline belonged to those states (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi), while any land beyond this point fell under federal jurisdiction. This decision clarified which areas were subject to state law versus federal law for purposes such as natural resource extraction rights or environmental regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States v. Louisiana case, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of historical precedent and international law in determining state boundaries. He argued that there was no clear evidence to support a shift from traditional principles which established states' submerged lands extending three geographical miles seaward from their coastline. The majority's reliance on an ambiguous 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf was misplaced according to him, as it did not explicitly redefine coastal state boundaries nor had it been universally accepted by all nations at that time. Furthermore, he criticized the court for overstepping its judicial role by making policy decisions better left to Congress or treaty negotiations between sovereign states. In his view, such unilateral action undermined federalism and threatened states' rights over their natural resources.