In the case of Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kansas, finding that Nebraska had violated a compact between the three states regarding water usage from the Republican River Basin. The 1943 agreement allocated 49% of river's water to Nebraska, 40% to Kansas, and 11% to Colorado. However, according to evidence presented by Kansas during trial proceedings, it was found that Nebraska overused its share by about 70 billion gallons in recent years causing significant harm downstream in Kansas where farmers rely heavily on this source for irrigation purposes. As a result of this violation, the court ordered Nebraska pay $5 million dollars as partial reparation damages for its breach while also mandating future compliance with agreed-upon allocations under threat of further penalties.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, Justice Thomas argued that the Court should not have awarded Kansas additional damages beyond what was necessary to compensate for its actual loss. He contended that this decision went against precedent, which had previously held that monetary awards in interstate water disputes should be compensatory rather than punitive. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "equitable apportionment," arguing it did not give them authority to impose sanctions or deter future breaches of compact agreements between states. Instead, he believed such issues were better left to Congress or negotiations between states themselves.