In the case of Missouri v. Illinois and The Sanitary District of Chicago, 1905, the state of Missouri filed a lawsuit against Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago alleging that they were polluting the Mississippi River by discharging sewage into it through an artificial channel known as the Chicago Drainage Canal. This pollution was causing health problems in St. Louis which is downstream from where this discharge was taking place. However, after considering scientific evidence presented to them about how waterborne diseases spread, including expert testimony from scientists who argued that bacteria could not survive long enough in flowing river water to pose a threat downstream, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois and The Sanitary District stating there wasn't sufficient proof showing direct causation between disease outbreaks in St.Louis and alleged pollution caused by defendants upstream.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri v. Illinois and The Sanitary District of Chicago, Justice Holmes argued that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to intervene in this case. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Illinois' actions were causing harm to Missouri's water supply or public health. Furthermore, he believed it would set a dangerous precedent if states could sue each other over potential future harms based on scientific predictions rather than concrete injuries. This, according to him, would open up a floodgate of lawsuits between states over speculative damages and uncertainties which are better left for legislative bodies or administrative agencies with expertise in such matters.