In the United States v. Maine et al., 1985, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over boundaries in the submerged lands off the coasts of several states. The case involved multiple parties including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York who were all claiming rights to these offshore areas. The court had previously established that each coastal state has sovereignty over waters up to three geographical miles from its coastline under Submerged Lands Act (SLA). However, there was disagreement about how this boundary should be measured for irregular coastlines or around islands. In their decision, the court clarified rules for determining these boundaries by applying principles from international law: straight baselines can be used where coast is deeply indented or if there's fringe of islands along coast; closing lines across mouths of bays must not exceed 24 nautical miles; and specific rules apply when measuring around islands depending on their size and distance from mainland.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Maine et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to grant exclusive jurisdiction over coastal waters to individual states was inconsistent with previous rulings and international law. He contended that the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, which granted states rights up to three miles from their coastlines, did not intend for those boundaries to extend beyond this limit without federal approval. Furthermore, he pointed out that extending state jurisdiction could potentially disrupt international navigation rights and create conflicts with other nations due to differing interpretations of maritime laws. Therefore, he believed it would be more appropriate for these areas of water - particularly those beyond three miles from shore - should remain under federal control in order to maintain consistency in legal interpretation and enforcement.