In the United States v. Louisiana et al., 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government over a dispute regarding offshore mineral rights. The case was part of a series known as the "Tidelands Controversy," which involved multiple states claiming ownership over coastal lands submerged under water up to three nautical miles from their coastlines. These claims were based on historical precedents and state laws, but conflicted with federal law that declared these areas part of U.S.'s Outer Continental Shelf and thus under federal jurisdiction. In this specific case, Louisiana claimed ownership to vast oil-rich tracts off its coastline. However, citing the Submerged Lands Act (1953) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (1953), both granting it control over such territories for national defense purposes and economic benefits like oil extraction revenues respectively; U.S argued against this claim by Louisiana along with other Gulf states - Texas & Florida too joined later supporting similar claims making them co-defendants in an amended lawsuit filed by US Government . The court's decision reaffirmed Federal authority over these disputed offshore lands.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Louisiana et al., Justice Black argued that the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 should be interpreted to grant Gulf states rights to offshore lands within three marine leagues (approximately nine nautical miles) from their coastlines, rather than just three geographical miles as determined by the majority. He contended that Congress intended to use a historical understanding of "coast line" in this legislation, which would include bays and other indentations and thus extend state boundaries further into the Gulf than under traditional international law definitions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's reliance on an interpretation of "boundaries" based on international law principles because it was not clear these were applicable or accepted at relevant times in history. Finally, he believed that any ambiguities in federal statutes relating to grants of land should be resolved in favor of grantees - here, meaning states - especially given longstanding disputes over these submerged lands between federal and state governments.