The U.S. Supreme Court case Arkansas v. Tennessee in 1969 revolved around a dispute between the two states over the ownership of a piece of land, known as "Island No. 35," located on their shared border along the Mississippi River. The issue arose due to changes in the river's course which caused confusion about state boundaries and jurisdictional rights over this island territory. The court ruled in favor of Tennessee, stating that when a river forming a boundary between states suddenly changes its course (avulsion), it does not affect existing political boundaries or property rights despite any geographical alterations that may occur as a result; instead, these remain fixed at their pre-existing location before such an event took place.

In the dissenting opinion for Arkansas v. Tennessee, 1969, it was argued that the majority's decision to award a disputed tract of land to Tennessee was incorrect due to their misinterpretation of historical precedent and geographical facts. The dissenting justices contended that the doctrine of avulsion should have been applied in this case instead of accretion. They believed that an abrupt change in river course (avulsion) had caused the shift in state boundaries rather than gradual erosion or deposition processes (accretion). Therefore, they asserted that despite changes in geography, ownership should remain with Arkansas as per original boundary lines established by treaties and statutes. Furthermore, they criticized the majority’s reliance on testimonies from local residents about perceived slow changes over time which were subjective and potentially unreliable compared to scientific evidence indicating sudden shifts due to earthquakes or floods.