opinion: UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA et al. (TEXAS BOUNDARY CASE).
  No. 9,
  Orig.
  Decided May 31, 1960,
  December 4,1967,
  and March 3, 1969.
  Decree Entered December 12, 1960.
  Supplemental Decree Entered May 5, 1969.
  For the purpose of giving effect to the conclusions of this Court as stated in its opinions announced December 4, 1967, and March 3, 1969, supplementing the decree entered herein on December 12, 1960, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:
  1. As against the State of Texas, the United States is entitled to—
  (a) All the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico that are more than three marine leagues gulfward from the present or future coastline as referred to in § 2 (c) of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 (c); and
  (b) All the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico, more than three geographical miles gulfward from the present or future coastline as referred to in § 2 (c) of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 (c), that are gulfward of the following line:
  Beginning at a point on the international boundary with Mexico (wherever that boundary may be located), three marine leagues gulfward from the point x = 2,447,033, y= 105,994 (Texas Plane Coordinate System, South Zone), latitude 25°57'05.90" N., longitude 97°08'22.85" W., and proceeding thence northwardly and eastwardly as follows:
  The State of Texas is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals or resources, and said State, its privies, assigns, lessees and other persons claiming under it are hereby enjoined from interfering with the rights of the United States in such lands, minerals and resources.
  2. As against the United States, with the exceptions provided by § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1313, the State of Texas is entitled to—
  (a) All the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico, bounded on the south by the international boundary with Mexico and on the east by the western boundary of Louisiana and an extension thereof, that are within three geographical miles from the present or future coastline as referred to in § 2 (c) of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 (c); and
  (b) All the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico, bounded on the south by the international boundary with Mexico and on the east by the western boundary of Louisiana and an extension thereof, less than three marine leagues gulfward from the present or future coastline as referred to in § 2 (c) of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 (c), that are landward of the line described in paragraph 1 (b) hereof.
  3. As used herein—
  (a) “Geographical mile” means a distance of 1852 meters (6076.10333 . . . U. S. Survey Feet or approximately 6076.11549 International Feet) ;
  (b) “Marine league” means a distance of three geographical miles;
  (c) Plane coordinates refer to the Texas Coordinate Systems, South Zone or South Central Zone, as indicated.
  (d) Latitudes and longitudes refer to the North American 1927 Datum.
  (e) All distances referred to herein are expressed at grid scale, Texas Plane Coordinate Systems.
  4. The Court retains jurisdiction 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, or to the decree of December 12, 1960, herein, or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
  The Chief Justice and Mb. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or formulation of this Supplemental 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.