In the United States v. Louisiana et al., also known as the Louisiana Boundary Case of 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government over a dispute regarding offshore mineral rights. The state of Louisiana had claimed ownership and control over submerged lands and their resources off its coast, extending three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico from its coastline. However, this claim was contested by other states along with oil companies who argued that these waters were part of international territory or under federal jurisdiction. The court held that all coastal states' boundaries extend only three geographical miles into open sea from their coasts unless otherwise provided by Congress; thus rejecting Louisiana's claim to an extended boundary line based on historical practice or geological factors such as sediment deposits from rivers flowing through it.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Louisiana et al., also known as the Louisiana Boundary Case, Justice Hugo Black disagreed with the majority's decision to grant federal jurisdiction over submerged lands off state coasts. He argued that this ruling contradicted previous decisions made by the court in relation to states' rights and control over their own resources. Justice Black believed that these coastal waters should be under state jurisdiction, not federal, due to historical precedent and legal principles of property rights and sovereignty. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on states’ economies resulting from loss of control over valuable natural resources found within these territories.