In the 1933 case of Arizona v. California, the state of Arizona filed a suit against California and seven other states seeking to establish its rights over the waters of the Colorado River. The Supreme Court dismissed this complaint on grounds that it was not within their jurisdiction as per Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S Constitution which limits original jurisdiction to cases involving ambassadors or public ministers or where a state is party. The court held that while they had original jurisdiction in controversies between two or more states, this did not extend to granting declaratory judgments - only specific relief for injuries suffered could be granted. Therefore, since no actual controversy existed at that time but merely hypothetical future disputes about water apportionment from Hoover Dam construction project were presented by Arizona's claim; thus making it inappropriate for judicial determination under existing circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona v. California et al., 1933, it was argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case. The dissenting justices believed that the dispute between Arizona and California regarding water rights to the Colorado River should be resolved by Congress rather than through litigation in court. They pointed out that interstate disputes of such magnitude involving allocation of natural resources are inherently political questions which require legislative solutions based on compromise and negotiation among states involved, rather than judicial determinations based on legal principles alone. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications of a court decision in favor of one state over another, warning it could set a dangerous precedent for future interstate conflicts over shared resources.