In the 1940 case of Arkansas v. Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to settle a dispute over the boundary line between these two states following changes in the course of Mississippi River. The issue arose when an avulsion (a rapid change in river's course) caused about 1,000 acres of land on what had been considered part of Arkansas to become attached to Tennessee’s side of the river. However, despite this physical shift, it remained legally part of Arkansas according to established precedent that state boundaries do not change due to avulsions but only through gradual erosion or accretion processes. Therefore, while acknowledging that such situations can create practical difficulties and confusion for residents regarding jurisdictional issues like taxation and law enforcement responsibilities; ultimately, based on legal principles governing interstate boundaries affected by natural watercourse changes - specifically differentiating between slow shifts (accretion) versus sudden ones (avulsion), it ruled in favor of Arkansas maintaining its original territorial claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Arkansas v. Tennessee, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to award disputed territory to Tennessee was based on an incorrect interpretation of previous case law and a misunderstanding of geographical principles. He contended that the Court had failed to properly consider historical evidence showing that the land in question had always been part of Arkansas prior to changes in the Mississippi River's course. Furthermore, he criticized their reliance on outdated maps and surveys which did not accurately reflect these changes or take into account modern scientific understanding about river dynamics. In his view, this resulted in an unjust ruling which violated both legal precedent and natural justice by arbitrarily transferring ownership from one state to another without sufficient justification.