In the case of Missouri v. Illinois and The Sanitary District of Chicago, 1900, the state of Missouri filed a lawsuit against Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago claiming that they were polluting the Mississippi River by discharging sewage into it. This pollution was alleged to be causing health problems in St. Louis, which is downstream from Chicago on the river system. However, after hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois and The Sanitary District stating that there wasn't enough evidence to prove direct causation between any potential health issues in Missouri and actions taken by defendants in Illinois. Furthermore, it was noted that if every upstream state could be held liable for downstream effects then almost all development would grind to a halt due to litigation fears - an untenable situation according to justices' opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri v. Illinois and The Sanitary District of Chicago, Justice Brewer argued that the court should not have dismissed Missouri's bill of complaint against Illinois and its sanitary district. He believed that if a state is causing pollution which could potentially harm citizens in another state, it becomes an issue of national concern warranting intervention by the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction. Brewer contended that states do not possess absolute sovereignty to act without regard for potential harm inflicted on neighboring states, particularly when public health is at risk. He also disagreed with the majority's reliance on scientific uncertainty about whether waterborne diseases can be transmitted across state lines as grounds for dismissal; he felt this was a factual matter best resolved through trial rather than assumption.