Alaska v. US, United States Supreme Court, June 6, 2005 [rejecting Alaska's claim to title of submerged land that the federal government has claimed title to since Alaska became a state]. Excerpt from the Opinion by Justice Kennedy:

In sum we agree with the United States that the proviso is best read, in light of our prior interpretation of it in Alaska (Arctic Coast), as expressing an independent and general rule uncoupled from the initial clause. Under the initial clause the United States obligated itself to transfer to Alaska equipment and other property used for general fish and wildlife management responsibilities Alaska was to undertake upon acquiring statehood. Under the proviso the United States expressed its intent, notwithstanding this property transfer, to retain ownership over all federal refuges and reservations set aside for the protection of wildlife, regardless of the specific statutory authority enabling the set-aside. This expression of intent encompassed Glacier Bay National Monument, which was set aside .for the protection of wildlife. within the meaning of §6(e). The text thus defeated the presumption that the new State of Alaska would acquire title to the submerged lands underlying the monument.s waters, including the inland waters of Glacier Bay.

Read the full text of the opinion here. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.