In the case of United States v. Louisiana et al., 1960, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over submerged lands off the Gulf Coast. The states of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida claimed ownership to these lands based on their historical boundaries extending three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico from their coastlines. However, under federal law (Submerged Lands Act), coastal states were only granted rights up to three geographical miles from their coastline. The court ruled in favor of the U.S government stating that it held paramount rights over offshore resources beyond state jurisdictional limits set by federal law - which is generally three nautical miles from shore but can extend further if a state had historically exerted control over such waters before admission into Union or as recognized by Congress later on. This decision affirmed Federal authority over offshore oil reserves and other natural resources located more than three miles off U.S coasts.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Louisiana et al., Justice Whittaker disagreed with the majority's decision that submerged lands and their resources belonged to the federal government rather than individual states. He argued that historical precedent, including international law and prior U.S. policy, supported state ownership of these lands up to three miles from their coasts. Furthermore, he contended that Congress had recognized this principle in several legislative acts over time. Therefore, he believed it was incorrect for the Court to conclude otherwise based on its interpretation of a single clause in the Constitution (the Property Clause). Justice Whittaker also expressed concern about potential implications of this ruling on state sovereignty rights.