In the case of South Dakota v. North Carolina in 1903, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between two states over defaulted bonds. The state of South Dakota had purchased bonds from North Carolina following the Civil War and later sued when North Carolina failed to pay them back. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter because it involved an issue between two sovereign states. This decision established a precedent for future cases involving disputes between states, asserting that such disagreements should be resolved through negotiation rather than litigation in federal court.

The dissenting opinion in the case of South Dakota v. North Carolina, 1903, argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear this case as it was a matter between two states and should be resolved by Congress rather than the judiciary. The dissenters believed that allowing such cases to come before the court would open up a floodgate of litigation between states over various issues which could potentially overwhelm the judicial system. They also expressed concern about potential bias within the court due to justices being appointed from different states and therefore possibly having vested interests in certain outcomes. Furthermore, they questioned whether decisions made by judges could truly resolve disputes between sovereign entities like states or if these matters were better left for negotiation and compromise through legislative means.