In the case of State of Arkansas v. State of Mississippi in 1918, the Supreme Court was asked to settle a dispute over territory between the two states. The disagreement arose due to changes in the course of the Mississippi River which had resulted in certain lands being transferred from one side of the river to another. The court ruled that when such changes occur gradually through natural processes (a process known as accretion), ownership remains with its original state; however, if they happen suddenly and noticeably (avulsion), then boundaries do not change despite geographical alterations. In this particular case, it was determined that an avulsive event had occurred and therefore, despite now lying on Arkansas's side geographically after a shift in river course, these disputed lands remained part of Mississippi.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Arkansas v. State of Mississippi, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant Arkansas jurisdiction over a disputed area in the Mississippi River failed to consider historical precedent and practical implications. The dissenting justices believed that past rulings had established a principle where changes in river courses did not affect state boundaries unless they were due to slow and natural processes (accretion), rather than sudden shifts (avulsion). They contended that evidence showed an avulsive change had occurred, meaning Mississippi should retain its original boundary rights. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential confusion and conflict arising from shifting jurisdictional control over people living within this region who have long considered themselves residents of Mississippi. Thus, while acknowledging both states' legitimate interests in controlling territory along their borders, these justices felt compelled to prioritize stability and continuity by upholding pre-existing boundaries.