The United States v. Louisiana case in 1980, also known as the Louisiana Boundary Case, was a dispute over offshore mineral rights between the federal government and several coastal states. The Supreme Court ruled that the submerged lands off of state coasts belonged to the federal government rather than individual states. This decision meant that revenues from oil and gas drilling in these areas would go to the federal treasury instead of state coffers. The court's ruling was based on its interpretation of both historical precedent and specific language within congressional acts related to coastal waters management.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Louisiana et al., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Submerged Lands Act (SLA). He argued that Congress intended to grant coastal states ownership over submerged lands up to three geographical miles from their coastlines, regardless of whether those boundaries extended beyond three nautical miles. The majority's decision, he contended, was based on an incorrect understanding of historical precedent and Congressional intent when passing the SLA. Furthermore, he believed that this ruling unfairly deprived Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states of valuable resources located within their rightful jurisdiction as defined by a proper reading of the SLA.