The U.S. Supreme Court case State of North Dakota v. State of Minnesota in 1923 revolved around a dispute between the two states over water pollution caused by sewage discharge from Minnesota into the Red River, which flows northward through both states and into Canada. The state of North Dakota alleged that this pollution was causing harm to its citizens and violating their rights under common law principles related to interstate waters. In response, Minnesota argued that it had taken steps to mitigate any potential harm and that its actions were protected by sovereign immunity. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with North Dakota but did not grant all requested relief due to lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating specific damages or injuries resulting from the pollution at issue in this case. However, they ruled that each state along an interstate river has a duty not to pollute those waters in ways harmful downstream; thus setting important precedent for future environmental cases involving shared resources across state lines.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of North Dakota v. State of Minnesota, Justice Holmes argued that it was not appropriate for the court to intervene in this dispute between states over water pollution. He believed that such issues should be resolved through negotiation and compromise rather than litigation. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts would have to decide complex scientific matters related to environmental harm. He also questioned whether North Dakota had sufficiently proven its claim that Minnesota's actions were causing significant damage downstream. In his view, there was too much uncertainty surrounding these claims and therefore they did not warrant judicial intervention.