In the case of Missouri v. Iowa in 1895, the Supreme Court was called upon to settle a border dispute between the two states. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of an 1839 survey that established their shared boundary line along part of the Des Moines River. Missouri claimed that this original survey had been incorrect and sought for it to be adjusted further northward into what was then considered Iowan territory, which would have given them additional land area and resources. However, after reviewing historical documents related to both states' admission into the Union as well as subsequent legislation and actions by Congress regarding their borders, the court ruled against Missouri's claim. They upheld that while there may have been minor errors in executing or interpreting past surveys, these did not warrant any significant changes being made at such a late date - especially since both states had effectively recognized and operated under this boundary for over half a century already.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri v. Iowa, 1895, Justice Brewer argued that the Court should not have jurisdiction over this case because it was essentially a political matter rather than a judicial one. He believed that disputes between states about their boundaries were issues of sovereignty and therefore should be resolved by Congress or through negotiation between the states themselves. Furthermore, he contended that even if the Court did have jurisdiction, it had no power to alter an agreement made in good faith by two sovereign entities (Missouri and Iowa). In his view, such agreements are binding unless they violate some constitutional provision or federal law - neither of which was applicable in this case. Thus, he disagreed with both the majority's decision to hear this case and its ultimate ruling against Missouri.