In the case of Oklahoma v. Arkansas in 1984, the Supreme Court was asked to settle a dispute between these two states over water pollution levels in the Illinois River. The state of Oklahoma claimed that Arkansas was allowing too much phosphorus into the river, which flows from Arkansas into Oklahoma, causing environmental damage and violating its rights under federal common law and statutory law. The court had to consider whether it had jurisdiction over this interstate dispute and if so, what standards should apply for determining acceptable pollution levels. The Supreme Court ruled that it did have original jurisdiction over this matter as an interstate dispute but declined to set specific numerical limits on phosphorus discharges by applying federal common law or statutory standards. Instead, they referred those issues back to a Special Master for further proceedings consistent with their opinion. This decision underscored both the role of the Supreme Court in resolving disputes between states and its reluctance to intervene directly in complex scientific matters better left initially at least to expert administrative agencies like EPA.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma v. Arkansas, 1984, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have accepted original jurisdiction over this case. The dissenting justices believed that the dispute between Oklahoma and Arkansas over pollution in a shared river system could have been more appropriately handled by lower courts or administrative agencies with greater expertise in environmental matters. They also expressed concern about using the court's limited resources to resolve complex technical disputes better suited for other forums. Furthermore, they noted that accepting such cases might encourage states to bypass federal regulatory schemes and seek direct judicial intervention instead of pursuing available administrative remedies first.