opinion: UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA et al.
  No. 10,
  Original.
  Decided May 31, 1960.
  Final Decree Entered December 12, 1960.
  FINAL DECREE.
  This cause having come on to be heard on the motion of the plaintiff for judgment and to dismiss the cross-bill of the State of Alabama, and having been argued by counsel, and this Court having stated its conclusions in its opinions announced on May 31, 1960, 363 U. S. 1, 121, and having considered the positions of the respective parties as to the terms of this decree, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:
  1. As against the respective defendant States, the United States is entitled to all the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico more than three geographic miles seaward from the coast lines of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and more than three leagues seaward from the coast lines of Texas and Florida, and extending seaward to the edge of the Continental Shelf. None of the States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama or Florida is entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals or resources, and each of said States, their' privies, assigns, lessees and other persons claiming under any of them are hereby enjoined from interfering with the rights of the United States in such lands, minerals and resources. As used in this decree, the term “coast line” means the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.
  2. As against the United States, the defendant States are respectively entitled to all the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico, extending seaward from their coast lines for a distance of three leagues in the case of Texas and Florida and three geographic miles in the case of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and the United States is not entitled, as against any of such States, to any interest in such lands, minerals or resources, with the exceptions provided by § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. G. § 1313.
  3. Whenever the location of the coast line of any of the defendant States shall be agreed upon or determined, such State shall thereupon promptly render to the United States a true, full, accurate and appropriate account of any and all sums of money derived by such State since June 5,1950, either by sale, leasing, licensing, exploitation or otherwise from or on account of any of the lands or resources described in paragraph 1 hereof which lie opposite to such coast line so agreed upon or determined, and, after said account has been rendered and filed with and approved by the Court, shall promptly pay to the United States a sum equal to such amounts shown by said account as so derived by said State; provided, however, that as to the State of Louisiana the allocation, withdrawal and payment of any funds now impounded under the Interim Agreement between the United States and the State of Louisiana, dated October 12, 1956, shall, subject to the terms hereof, be made in accordance with the appropriate provisions of said Agreement.
  4. The cross-bill of the State of Alabama is dismissed.
  5. All motions to "take depositions and present evidence are denied without prejudice to their renewal in such further proceedings as may be had in connection with matters left open by this decree.
  6. The motion of the State of Texas for severance is dismissed.
  7. The motion of the State of Louisiana to transfer the case to a district court is denied.
  8. Jurisdiction is reserved by this Court to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree.
  The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the formulation of this decree.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.