The United States v. Louisiana et al., also known as the Texas Boundary Case, was a Supreme Court case in 1968 that involved a dispute over submerged lands and their mineral rights along the Gulf Coast of Texas. The federal government claimed ownership based on historical treaties and conventions, while the state of Texas argued for its right to these resources under terms of its annexation by the U.S. in 1845. The court ruled in favor of the federal government, stating that at no point did it relinquish control or ownership over these offshore lands to individual states upon their entry into union with them. This decision clarified jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal governments regarding offshore natural resources, reaffirming that such territories were held by Washington unless explicitly granted otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States v. Louisiana et al., also known as the Texas Boundary Case, it was argued that historical precedent and international law should have been given more weight in determining state boundaries. The dissenting justices believed that each coastal state's boundary should extend three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico from its coastline, based on a long-standing interpretation of an 1845 congressional resolution regarding Texas' admission to the Union. They disagreed with majority’s reliance on a 1953 federal statute (Submerged Lands Act) which granted states rights only up to three miles off their coasts, arguing this act did not intend to alter pre-existing boundaries but rather confirm them. Furthermore, they contended that changing these established boundaries would disrupt settled expectations and potentially cause unnecessary disputes or conflicts over resources located within these areas.