In the 1907 case of Ex Parte The State of Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over water rights between Colorado and Nebraska. The state of Nebraska filed an original action in the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin Colorado from diverting waters from the South Platte River which flowed into Nebraska. It was argued that this diversion would cause significant harm to Nebraskan farmers who relied on these waters for irrigation purposes. However, after considering arguments from both sides, the court dismissed Nebraska's complaint. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over such disputes between states unless there is a clear showing that one state’s actions are causing substantial injury or damage within another state’s borders. In this case, no such evidence was presented by Nebraska; hence its claim could not be sustained under existing legal principles governing interstate relations and federalism. This decision established important precedents regarding interstate water disputes and confirmed that while states do have certain sovereign powers over resources within their boundaries, they cannot exercise those powers in ways that cause demonstrable harm to neighboring states without facing potential judicial intervention.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte The State of Nebraska, 1907 was not explicitly recorded. However, it can be inferred that any dissent would have disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Nebraska's request for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Charles Morrisey. This could potentially involve arguing against the court's interpretation of federal jurisdiction or its application of extradition laws and procedures. They might also have contended that Morrisey’s constitutional rights were violated by his arrest and detention in Iowa without due process under Nebraska law.