In the case of Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp et al., 1970, the state of Ohio filed a lawsuit against several chemical companies in Michigan and Ontario, Canada. The suit alleged that these companies were polluting Lake Erie by discharging mercury into its waters which then flowed downstream to contaminate Ohio's portion of the lake. The State sought an injunction to stop this pollution and damages for past harm caused by it. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not have original jurisdiction over such disputes between states and private parties under Article III Section 2 Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution (which grants original jurisdiction only in cases involving ambassadors or other public ministers, disputes between two or more states etc.). Instead, they held that federal district courts would be better suited to handle such complex litigation due to their greater resources and expertise in handling evidence-based trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., it was argued that the Supreme Court should have accepted jurisdiction over this case, as there were significant and pressing issues at stake regarding interstate water pollution. The dissenters believed that the court had a responsibility to address these matters directly rather than deferring them to other forums or lower courts. They contended that only through direct intervention could effective solutions be found for such complex, multi-state problems like water pollution which inherently transcends state boundaries. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential delays in addressing these urgent environmental concerns if left to individual states or federal agencies with limited resources and authority.