In the United States v. Maine et al., 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining which entity had rightful jurisdiction over coastal submerged lands along the Atlantic coast - individual states or the federal government. The case arose when several Atlantic seaboard states claimed ownership of these areas based on historical precedents and common law principles. However, under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, Congress granted coastal states rights to submerged lands up to three geographical miles from their coasts but retained control over resources beyond that limit for federal use. The court ruled in favor of the Federal Government by a unanimous decision stating that it held paramount rights to all such land seaward of low-water mark on state's coastlines because they were not included within boundaries at time those states entered Union and thus did not pass into state ownership upon admission but remained in Federal domain. This ruling established an important precedent regarding offshore resource management and maritime boundary disputes between individual American states and Washington D.C., affirming federal authority over significant marine territories for purposes like oil exploration or fishing regulation enforcement among others.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Maine et al., 1975, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant exclusive rights of seabed and subsoil resources up to three miles from their coastlines to individual states contradicted historical precedent and international law. The dissenters believed that these resources should be considered federal property due to their location in federally controlled waters. They pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous cases where offshore oil reserves were deemed federal property despite being located within state boundaries. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential conflicts arising from different states having varying laws governing these resources, which could lead to legal disputes or hinder national efforts towards resource conservation or management.