The Supreme Court case State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, with the United States as an intervener in 1924, revolved around a territorial dispute between the two states over the Red River boundary. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of where exactly along or within the riverbed constituted their shared border. This was further complicated by changes in geography and water flow over time which altered physical landmarks used for demarcation purposes. The U.S government intervened because it held rights to oil-rich lands near this disputed area under public trust doctrine principles that required them to protect and manage natural resources for all citizens' benefit. After considering historical treaties, maps, surveys and other evidence presented by both parties during litigation proceedings, the court ruled in favor of Texas based on its interpretation that state boundaries were set at "the south bank" rather than "along" or "in" middle parts of rivers unless explicitly stated otherwise in legal documents.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to award a disputed area along the Red River to Texas. He argued that historical evidence and past treaties clearly indicated that this land belonged to Oklahoma. According to him, previous agreements between Spain and France had established boundaries which were later adopted by both Mexico and United States in their respective treaties; these lines should be respected as they have been recognized internationally for over 100 years. Furthermore, he contended that even if there was ambiguity about where exactly those borders lay due to changes in river course or other natural phenomena, it would still not justify arbitrarily changing them without proper negotiation or agreement between states involved.