In the United States v. Louisiana et al., 1959, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over submerged lands and their accompanying mineral rights between the federal government and several coastal states including Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. The controversy arose from differing interpretations of historical documents regarding state boundaries at the time of admission to the Union. The court ruled in favor of the U.S. Federal Government asserting that it held paramount rights to explore, exploit and conserve all resources found on or under these disputed offshore lands extending seaward three geographical miles from each state's coastline into Gulf of Mexico as per Submerged Lands Act (SLA) passed by Congress in 1953 which grants coastal states title to natural resources located within three nautical miles off their coastlines but beyond this limit belongs to federal jurisdiction according to Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). This decision significantly impacted oil drilling operations along Gulf Coast region since vast majority were located more than three miles offshore thus falling under federal control.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Louisiana et al., Justice Whittaker disagreed with the majority's decision that granted ownership of submerged lands to the federal government, arguing it was inconsistent with historical precedent and understanding. He contended that from its inception, each state had sovereignty over its adjacent waters and submerged lands out to three nautical miles (the traditional limit of a country's territorial sea). This principle was recognized in international law and confirmed by numerous U.S. statutes and court decisions before 1945 when Congress passed Submerged Lands Act granting states rights over these areas up to three geographical miles from their coastlines. The majority’s interpretation of this act as only applying where states could show they had been given explicit title at time of admission into Union seemed incorrect to him because it ignored long-standing practice recognizing implicit state sovereignty over these areas regardless of specific grants or lack thereof at time of admission.