The Supreme Court case Oklahoma v. Texas, United States, Intervener in 1926 revolved around a dispute between the states of Oklahoma and Texas over the ownership of certain oil-rich lands along their shared border at the Red River. The U.S. government also intervened as it had leased some parts of this land to private companies for oil extraction purposes. The main issue was whether these lands were part of public domain or belonged to either state under terms defined by Congress when both states were admitted into Union. After examining historical documents and treaties with Native American tribes who previously inhabited these areas, the court ruled that most disputed territory fell within boundaries set for Oklahoma during its admission process but recognized that river's course could change naturally over time which might alter state lines accordingly in future.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma v. Texas, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. disagreed with the majority's decision to grant an injunction against Texas and its oil companies from drilling in a disputed territory along the Red River border between Oklahoma and Texas. He argued that there was no clear evidence of irreparable harm being caused by continued drilling operations, which is typically required for such injunctive relief to be granted. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene in this matter as it essentially involved a dispute over property rights between two states - something better resolved through negotiation or arbitration rather than litigation before the highest court in land. Lastly, Justice Holmes expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could interfere with state affairs based on speculative harms or potential future disputes.