In the case of New Mexico v. Texas in 1927, the Supreme Court was asked to settle a dispute over the boundary line between these two states. The disagreement arose from differing interpretations of an 1850 act of Congress that established Texas's western and northern boundaries when it was admitted into the Union. In its decision, the court ruled in favor of Texas, holding that a straight line drawn north from where Rio Grande intersects parallel 32° north latitude would mark part of their shared border. This ruling effectively granted more territory to Texas than what New Mexico claimed under its interpretation of congressional legislation and historical precedent.

In the dissenting opinion for New Mexico v. Texas, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant Texas jurisdiction over a disputed territory based on historical usage and possession was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that this approach ignored key legal principles of territorial sovereignty and state boundaries as defined by Congress at the time of each state's admission into the Union. They contended that when New Mexico became a state in 1912, its eastern boundary was clearly established along longitude 103 degrees west, which would place all of the disputed territory within New Mexico’s borders. Therefore, they disagreed with awarding any part of this land to Texas simply because it had exercised de facto control over it in previous years without formal recognition or approval from Congress. This interpretation could potentially undermine other states' rights and lead to future disputes over territories where similar situations might occur.