In the case of Mississippi v. Louisiana in 1992, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over the boundary line between Mississippi and Louisiana in an area known as Davis Island. The disagreement arose due to changes in the course of the Mississippi River, which traditionally formed part of their border. Both states claimed sovereignty over this land based on different interpretations of historical documents and maps. After considering evidence from both sides, including expert testimony about river movements and historical records dating back to 1812 when Louisiana became a state, it was determined that there had been no avulsive change (a sudden shift) in the river's path but rather gradual accretion (slow build-up). Therefore, under common law principles governing riparian boundaries (those adjacent to water), ownership remained with Mississippi because its border moved gradually with slow changes in river’s course rather than suddenly shifting due to an event like flooding or earthquake.

In the dissenting opinion for Mississippi v. Louisiana, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it is essentially a boundary dispute between states. The dissenting justices believed that such disputes should be resolved through negotiation and compromise rather than litigation in federal court. They also expressed concern about the potential implications of allowing such cases to proceed before the Supreme Court, arguing that it could lead to an increase in similar lawsuits and potentially disrupt long-standing state boundaries across the country. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions related to interstate boundaries.