In the 1933 case of New Jersey v. Delaware, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a boundary dispute between these two states over the ownership and jurisdiction of riparian lands in the Delaware River. The controversy stemmed from conflicting interpretations of historical agreements dating back to 1682 and 1905, which had attempted to establish clear boundaries within this shared waterway but left room for ambiguity regarding certain areas. New Jersey claimed that it held exclusive jurisdiction up to the low-water mark on Delaware's side under common law principles while Delaware argued that its territory extended into mid-river based on colonial charters and subsequent confirmations by Congress. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Delaware, holding that it possessed sovereignty over all riparian lands up to mean low water line on its shore as well as full rights over waters within twelve-mile circle around New Castle even if they flowed past New Jersey’s shoreline. This decision clarified interstate territorial limits along this section of river thus settling an enduring conflict between these neighboring states.

In the dissenting opinion for New Jersey v. Delaware, 1933, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to grant Delaware exclusive jurisdiction over a portion of the river bordering both states was inconsistent with historical precedent and common law principles. He contended that under these principles, when a navigable river forms a boundary between two states, each state has concurrent jurisdiction up to the middle of the river (the thalweg). Therefore, he believed New Jersey should have been granted shared rights over this section of waterway. Furthermore, he disagreed with how much weight was given by his colleagues to an agreement made in 1905 between representatives from both states as it had not been ratified by their respective legislatures or Congress. In conclusion, Justice Stone felt that denying New Jersey any authority over this part of its natural border based on such shaky grounds represented an unjustifiable departure from established legal norms and practices.