In the 1930 case of Connecticut v. Massachusetts, the state of Connecticut sued Massachusetts over a dispute regarding water rights to the Swift River. The river flowed through both states and was used by each for various purposes including power generation and public water supply. Connecticut claimed that Massachusetts' plan to divert more water from the river would cause harm to its own interests downstream, particularly in relation to hydroelectric power production. However, after careful consideration, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts stating that it had not been proven beyond doubt that there would be significant injury caused by this diversion or any violation of interstate law principles governing equitable apportionment of shared natural resources between states.

In the dissenting opinion for Connecticut v. Massachusetts, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it is a dispute between states about water rights and usage. The dissenting justices believed that such matters should be resolved through negotiation and agreement between the involved states rather than judicial intervention. They contended that by taking on this case, the court was stepping outside its constitutional role of interpreting law to instead making policy decisions which are better left to legislative bodies or executive agencies with expertise in managing natural resources. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications of their decision on future interstate disputes regarding shared resources like rivers or air quality where one state's actions could affect another's environment or public health.