In the case of The State of Florida v. The State of Georgia, Florida brought a complaint against Georgia for not honoring its obligations under an 1802 compact between the two states. This agreement provided that both states would share in the use and navigation of waters located along their shared border. In response to this complaint, Georgia argued that it had no obligation to comply with this compact because Congress had never ratified it as required by Article I Section 10 Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. However, after careful consideration, the Supreme Court found that while ratification was necessary for interstate compacts involving land grants or other matters requiring congressional approval, such ratification was unnecessary when dealing with navigable rivers and streams which are subject only to state control. As a result, they ruled in favor of Florida finding that Georgia must honor its obligations under this 1802 compact and allow access to these shared waterways as agreed upon by both parties at that time.

In the case of The State of Florida v. The State of Georgia, Justice Curtis wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have taken jurisdiction over this dispute between two states. He noted that it was an issue for Congress to decide and that there were no constitutional grounds upon which the Court could base its decision. Furthermore, he argued that even if they did take jurisdiction, their ruling would be advisory only since neither state had consented to being bound by it. In conclusion, Justice Curtis believed that any attempt by the Supreme Court to resolve this matter would be unconstitutional and beyond its authority as defined in Article III of the Constitution.