In the case of Arizona v. California et al., 1955, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over water rights from the Colorado River among several Western states and Mexico. The primary issue was whether or not Arizona had a right to access water from the river's main stream for use within its borders. The court ruled in favor of California, stating that Congress had intended for each state along the river to have equal rights to its waters when it passed legislation approving construction of Boulder Dam (now Hoover Dam) and other projects on the river during 1920s and '30s. However, this decision did not end disputes between these states over their respective shares of Colorado River water; further litigation continued into subsequent decades.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona v. California et al., Justice Harold Hitz Burton argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to make a decision on this case, as it was essentially an interstate dispute over water rights of the Colorado River. He believed that such disputes should be resolved by Congress and not by court decisions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of several federal statutes and compacts related to water allocation in Western states, arguing they were misinterpreted or applied incorrectly. He also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on future negotiations between states if courts were allowed to intervene in such matters without clear congressional authorization.