In the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 1921, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to resolve a boundary dispute between Oklahoma and Texas over their shared border along the Red River. The controversy arose due to changes in the river's course which led both states claiming ownership over certain areas. The U.S., as an intervener, argued that it held title to these disputed lands under various treaties with Native American tribes and subsequent legislation by Congress. After examining historical documents and legal precedents, including previous decisions regarding riparian boundaries (boundaries formed by rivers), the court ruled in favor of Texas for most part but also recognized some parts as belonging to Oklahoma or federal government depending on specific geographical features such as cut-off meanders or accretions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to grant Texas ownership rights over a disputed portion of land along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. He argued that historical evidence clearly showed that this area was intended to belong to Oklahoma when it became a state in 1907. Furthermore, he contended that previous court decisions had already established this fact and should be respected as precedent. He also criticized his colleagues' interpretation of certain treaties and statutes related to this issue, suggesting they were ignoring their plain meaning in favor of an unjust outcome for Oklahoma.