The U.S. Supreme Court case Indiana v. Kentucky in 1895 revolved around a territorial dispute between the two states over the ownership of Green River Island, located on the Ohio River. The disagreement arose due to changes in the river's course which led to uncertainty about state boundaries as defined by colonial charters and early statehood acts. Indiana claimed that it had jurisdiction over any land north of the low-water mark on the northern side of Ohio River, including Green River Island, while Kentucky argued that its boundary extended into what was now technically part of Indiana because this area used to be southward from where it originally stood before natural forces altered its position. The court ruled in favor of Kentucky based on historical precedent and legal principles related to riparian rights (rights relating to bodies of water). It held that when a river forming a boundary between states shifts gradually through natural processes such as erosion or sediment deposition (accretion), then political boundaries shift with it; but if change happens suddenly due to events like floods or landslides (avulsion), then original boundaries remain intact despite geographical alterations.

In the dissenting opinion for Indiana v. Kentucky, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider historical evidence and precedent. He believed that the boundary dispute between Indiana and Kentucky should have been resolved by looking at past treaties and agreements between these states rather than relying on technicalities of law. Furthermore, he contended that the Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by making a determination about state boundaries without sufficient evidence or consideration of relevant legal principles. In his view, this case represented an instance where judicial discretion was improperly used to decide matters of great public importance which could potentially lead to future conflicts among states.