In the case of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not a portion of Narragansett Bay belonged to Rhode Island or Massachusetts. Both states had long-standing claims on this area, with each state claiming that it had been part of their original colonial boundaries since 1636. After considering evidence from both sides, including maps and historical documents, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Rhode Island's claim over the disputed territory. This decision established an important precedent for future boundary disputes between states by affirming that when two states have conflicting claims based on ancient charters and other historical records, those records should be given precedence over modern surveys or other more recent evidence presented by either side in such cases.

In the case of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the boundary between Rhode Island and Massachusetts should be determined by its original charter from King Charles II. He believed that this was an issue to be decided by Congress, not the Supreme Court, as it involved two states with conflicting claims over land rights. Furthermore, he stated that if Congress had intended for the Court to decide such matters they would have granted them jurisdiction over state boundaries when they created Article III in 1789. Additionally, Justice McLean noted that there were no precedents or laws governing how disputes like these should be resolved; thus making it difficult for any court to make a decision on such matters without infringing upon either party's rights under their respective charters or other legal documents pertaining to their borders. Ultimately, his dissent concluded with him asserting that since both parties agreed on where the border lay prior to this dispute being brought before the Supreme Court - then why couldn't they just continue living peacefully within those same boundaries?