In the case of Mississippi ex rel. Robertson v. Miller in 1927, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between two states over water rights to the Pearl River. The state of Mississippi filed a suit against Louisiana's Governor Oramel H. Simpson and other officials for allegedly diverting waters from the river that rightfully belonged to Mississippi according to an 1812 act of Congress which established Louisiana as a state with its eastern boundary being "the middle" of Pearl River. The court held that it had jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (Original Jurisdiction) of the U.S Constitution because this was essentially a controversy between two states; however, it dismissed Mississippi’s bill without prejudice due to lack of evidence proving substantial injury or threat thereof caused by Louisiana's actions. The ruling emphasized that while each riparian state has equal rights regarding navigable rivers forming their boundaries, one cannot complain about reasonable use by another unless there is material damage or imminent danger - neither was proven in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Mississippi ex rel. Robertson v. Miller, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a Mississippi tax on cotton futures contracts was incorrect because it interfered with state sovereignty. The dissenters believed that states should have broad authority to regulate their own economies without federal interference unless there is clear constitutional prohibition against such regulation. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the commerce clause as prohibiting state taxation of commodities futures transactions, arguing instead that such transactions were not interstate commerce but rather speculative activities subject to state control and taxation.