The State of Rhode Island brought a case against the State of Massachusetts in front of the United States Supreme Court. The dispute was over land boundaries between the two states, with Rhode Island claiming that Massachusetts had unlawfully taken some of its territory. After extensive review and consideration, it was determined that while there were discrepancies in how each state interpreted their boundary lines, they could not be resolved without further evidence from both sides. As such, no definitive ruling on which state owned what land could be made at this time and so the court dismissed the complaint filed by Rhode Island against Massachusetts.

In the case of Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed Rhode Island's complaint against Massachusetts. He noted that while it was true that Rhode Island had failed to prove its claims regarding fishing rights and navigation on Narragansett Bay, this did not mean they were without merit or could be summarily dismissed by the Court. Instead, Justice McLean argued that these issues should have been addressed through arbitration as provided for under Article IV of the Compact between both states. Furthermore, he contended that even if there was no evidence to support some of Rhode Island's claims, others still remained unresolved and thus deserved further consideration from the Court before being dismissed outright. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed it would be unjust to deny any state their right to seek redress when wronged by another state simply because one party failed to provide sufficient proof for all their allegations at once; instead each claim must be considered separately so justice can prevail in such disputes between states.