In the case of Oklahoma v. Texas in 1925, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a boundary dispute between the two states over an area known as "Greer County." The controversy arose due to conflicting interpretations of the Treaty of 1819 between Spain and U.S., which defined boundaries based on geographical features like rivers. However, confusion about which river was actually referred to in this treaty led to both states claiming ownership over Greer County. The court ruled that according to their interpretation of the treaty's language and historical evidence regarding its negotiation, Greer County belonged within Texas' borders rather than Oklahoma's. This decision effectively ended a long-standing territorial dispute by clarifying state lines and affirming federal authority in interpreting treaties.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma v. Texas, 1925, it was argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case as it involved a dispute between states about their respective boundaries. The dissenting justices believed that such disputes should be resolved by Congress and not by the courts. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous treaties and statutes related to boundary issues between these two states. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications of this ruling on future cases involving state boundaries or property rights disputes among private parties within those disputed areas. They feared that allowing judicial intervention in such matters could undermine political processes designed to handle them and create unnecessary conflicts among different branches of government.