In the case of Missouri et al. v. Fiske et al., 1933, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between states regarding river rights and transportation fees. The state of Missouri had filed suit against Illinois and Chicago's Sanitary District for diverting water from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River system, which allegedly altered its levels and currents to such an extent that navigation was adversely affected in violation of federal law. The court held that while states have certain sovereign powers over their natural resources, these are subject to regulation by Congress under its commerce power when they affect interstate or foreign commerce. In this instance, it found no evidence that diversion substantially impacted navigation or violated any Congressional act regulating navigable waters; hence there was no basis for relief sought by Missouri.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri et al. v. Fiske et al., the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting out-of-state newspapers from distributing within its borders was an infringement on freedom of speech and press, as protected by the First Amendment. The justice emphasized that such laws could lead to censorship and limit access to information, which is detrimental in a democratic society where informed citizens are crucial. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions upholding free expression rights against similar state regulations. They also expressed concern about potential discrimination between local and non-local businesses under such laws, arguing it violated interstate commerce principles.