In the case of Louisiana v. Mississippi et al., 1995, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a territorial dispute between the states of Louisiana and Mississippi over an area known as South Pass Batture in the lower Mississippi River. The issue arose due to changes in river channels which led to uncertainty about state boundaries. Both states claimed jurisdiction over this area based on different historical treaties and maps. The court ruled that it lacked original jurisdiction because there were no conflicting grants by Congress or other actions by federal authorities that would give rise to a controversy within its exclusive original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution (which gives SCOTUS original jurisdiction for disputes between two or more states). Instead, they held that such boundary disputes should be resolved through negotiation and agreement between involved parties rather than litigation before courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisiana v. Mississippi et al., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision that Louisiana had no claim to a portion of the Gulf Islands National Seashore. She argued that, while Congress did have authority over public lands, it could not unilaterally alter state boundaries without consent from both states involved. In her view, when Congress established the national seashore in 1971 and included within its bounds islands previously recognized as part of Louisiana, it effectively changed those boundaries - an action she believed was unconstitutional without explicit agreement from both states. Therefore, she would have allowed Louisiana's lawsuit against Mississippi to proceed.