In the 1985 case Kentucky v. Indiana et al., the state of Kentucky filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against Indiana and several other states, seeking an injunction that would prevent those states from enforcing their statutes imposing income taxes on non-residents' retirement benefits while exempting similar benefits received by residents. The Supreme Court denied this motion, stating that it did not have original jurisdiction over such disputes between states under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. This section grants original jurisdiction to cases "in which a State shall be Party," but does not cover all controversies in which a state may be involved. The court ruled that its original jurisdiction is limited to cases where there is direct injury or threat thereof to one state's sovereignty caused by another state - something absent in this case as it was essentially about tax policy rather than sovereign rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Kentucky v. Indiana et al., Justice Stevens argued that the Court's decision to deny Kentucky's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint was incorrect. He contended that this case presented an important question about the allocation of power between federal and state governments, which should have been addressed by the Supreme Court. According to him, when two states are in conflict over their boundaries or rights, it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article III of Constitution to resolve such disputes. Therefore, he believed that dismissing Kentucky’s claim without giving them an opportunity for argument was not justifiable as it undermined principles fundamental to our federal system.