The U.S. Supreme Court case Oklahoma v. Texas; United States, Intervenor (1926) revolved around a dispute over the ownership of oil-rich lands along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. The controversy arose due to ambiguities in defining the exact border line between these two states as per their admission into the Union, which led both states to claim jurisdiction over this area. In 1919, private parties began drilling for oil on these disputed lands leading to further conflicts about rightful ownership and profits from extracted resources. To resolve this issue, in 1923, the U.S Supreme Court appointed a special master who recommended that an equitable division of land be made based on surveys conducted by commissioners from each state under federal supervision. However, neither state was satisfied with his recommendations and continued litigation until 1926 when it was decided that all revenues derived since July 1st ,1912 should be divided equally among them while future revenues would go entirely to whichever state had legal title according to international law principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma v. Texas, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant an injunction against drilling operations in a disputed area of land along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. He argued that there was no clear evidence showing imminent harm or damage to any party involved if oil production continued while litigation over ownership rights proceeded. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with state matters unless absolutely necessary - which he did not believe this case warranted. The justice also expressed concern about potential economic consequences of halting productive industry activities based on uncertain legal claims, suggesting such actions could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving resource disputes among states.