The Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. New York et al., 1925, revolved around the issue of interstate water rights and pollution. The state of Massachusetts filed a suit against the state of New York and several other defendants, alleging that they were polluting waters upstream which then flowed into Massachusetts, causing harm to its citizens. The court ruled in favor of New York stating that it was not within their jurisdiction to regulate or control such matters as these are better left for individual states to handle through legislation or negotiation with each other. This ruling established an important precedent regarding interstate environmental disputes and the limitations on federal judicial power in resolving them.

In the dissenting opinion for Massachusetts v. New York et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over disputes between states regarding their boundaries or rights to natural resources, such as rivers and harbors. He believed these issues were political in nature and thus should be resolved by Congress rather than the judiciary branch of government. Furthermore, he contended that even if a state could bring a suit against another state in federal court, it would still need to prove injury or threat of injury - something which Massachusetts had failed to do in this case according to him. Therefore, he disagreed with majority's decision allowing Massachusetts' lawsuit against New York over alleged pollution of its waters by sewage from New York City.