In the case of Louisiana v. Mississippi et al., 1965, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a territorial dispute between the states of Louisiana and Mississippi over jurisdictional rights in certain offshore areas along their shared border in the Gulf of Mexico. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of historical boundary agreements and federal laws regarding state boundaries extending into bodies of water. The court ruled that it did not have original jurisdiction over this interstate dispute because it involved interpretation and application of federal law, rather than being strictly a matter concerning state boundaries under common law principles or constitutional provisions directly governing such disputes. Therefore, they dismissed Louisiana's complaint without prejudice so that it could be pursued through other appropriate legal channels.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisiana v. Mississippi et al., Justice Black argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case, as it was essentially a political dispute between states rather than a legal one. He believed that such disputes should be resolved by Congress or through negotiation between the states themselves, rather than being decided by the courts. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of historical evidence and treaties to determine state boundaries; instead arguing that these documents were ambiguous and open to different interpretations. Therefore, he felt it was inappropriate for the court to make definitive decisions based on them.