The U.S. Supreme Court case Oklahoma v. Texas; United States, Intervener (1929) revolved around a dispute between the states of Oklahoma and Texas over the ownership rights to oil-rich lands along their shared border at the Red River. The controversy arose due to an unclear boundary line in this area, leading both states to claim jurisdiction and resulting in legal battles over who had rightful control of these valuable resources. In 1923, the Supreme Court appointed a special master to investigate and report on facts related to this issue. After years of investigation, he recommended that most disputed land should be awarded to Texas based on historical evidence about where exactly the south bank - which was considered as state boundary - lay when Congress admitted Texas into Union in 1845. However, some parts were also given back under federal government's control or assigned as public lands for common use by citizens from both sides.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma v. Texas, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant ownership of a disputed portion of the Red River bed to Texas. He argued that when Congress admitted Oklahoma into the Union in 1906, it intended for its boundary to extend beyond vegetation on its side of the river up until where water usually flows in ordinary conditions - essentially, up to what is known as "gradient boundary". This would include parts of riverbed exposed during low water levels and not just areas permanently above water. Therefore, he believed that this land should belong to Oklahoma rather than Texas. Furthermore, he contended that even if there was ambiguity about congressional intent regarding state boundaries at admission time or later changes due to natural shifts in rivers' courses (avulsion), such ambiguities should be resolved favorably towards newer states like Oklahoma so they are not disadvantaged compared older ones like Texas which had defined their borders earlier under different circumstances.