The United States v. Louisiana et al., also known as the Louisiana Boundary Case, was a Supreme Court case in 1974 that dealt with issues of state and federal jurisdiction over offshore resources. The dispute arose when several Gulf Coast states claimed ownership of submerged lands and mineral rights extending three leagues (approximately nine miles) from their coastlines into the Gulf of Mexico, based on historical Spanish law. The U.S. government contested these claims, arguing that it held exclusive rights to these areas under international law principles recognized by the Submerged Lands Act (1953). In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government's interpretation and ruled against Louisiana and other involved states including Texas and Florida. It declared that each state's territorial boundary extended only three nautical miles from their coastline into the Gulf of Mexico for purposes related to natural resource control or exploitation.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States v. Louisiana case, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to grant federal ownership over submerged lands off state coasts was a misinterpretation of both historical precedent and legislative intent. He contended that states have traditionally held jurisdiction over these areas, as evidenced by their regulation of fishing and navigation activities in coastal waters throughout history. Furthermore, he asserted that Congress intended to confirm this traditional state authority when it passed the Submerged Lands Act in 1953, which granted states rights to natural resources within three miles of their coastlines. Therefore, according to Justice Douglas' interpretation, offshore oil reserves should be considered part of these natural resources and thus fall under state control rather than federal control.