The Supreme Court case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas in 1920 revolved around a territorial dispute between the two states over the Red River boundary. The United States intervened as it had interests in oil reserves located within the disputed territory. The court was tasked with determining which state held jurisdiction over this area, and thus control over its resources. In their decision, they relied on historical treaties and past precedent to determine that when a river is used as a boundary line, any changes made to its course naturally do not affect said boundary unless explicitly stated otherwise by treaty or statute law. Therefore, despite shifts in the Red River's path since previous agreements were established, these did not alter where the border stood legally; hence Texas retained ownership rights over most parts of Greer County (the disputed region). This ruling set an important legal precedent for future cases involving interstate disputes related to natural boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice Holmes argued that the Supreme Court should not have intervened in this boundary dispute between two states. He believed that such matters were better left to Congress or an agreement between the states themselves. He also disagreed with how majority interpreted and applied certain treaties and statutes relevant to this case, arguing they had misinterpreted their meaning and intent. Furthermore, he felt it was inappropriate for a court-appointed commissioner to determine ownership rights over disputed lands without first having a trial by jury as required under federal law when land titles are at stake. In his view, these actions violated due process rights guaranteed by Fifth Amendment.