The United States v. Louisiana et al., also known as the Louisiana Boundary Case, was a Supreme Court case in 1972 that dealt with territorial boundaries and rights to natural resources. The dispute arose when several Gulf Coast states claimed ownership of submerged lands and their mineral rights extending three leagues (approximately nine miles) from their coasts into the Gulf of Mexico. The federal government contested these claims, arguing that it held exclusive rights to these areas under international law principles. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government, ruling that all coastal waters - not just those within state borders - were subject to U.S jurisdiction and control for purposes such as defense or commerce regulation. This meant any revenue generated from oil drilling or other activities on this land would go directly to the federal government rather than individual states.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Louisiana case argued that the majority's decision to grant federal jurisdiction over submerged lands up to three geographical miles from a state's coastline was inconsistent with previous rulings and international law. The dissenters believed that each state should retain control over its adjacent waters, as per historical precedent and practice. They contended that this would ensure states' rights were upheld, while also maintaining stability in domestic and international affairs related to maritime boundaries. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential conflicts arising from different interpretations of what constitutes an 'inland water'. This could lead to disputes between states or even internationally if other countries followed suit by extending their own territorial claims based on similar reasoning used by the court majority.