The case of State of Kansas v. States of Nebraska and Colorado in 2002 revolved around a dispute over the usage rights to the waters from the Republican River, which flows through all three states. The Supreme Court was asked to interpret an existing compact between these states that had been established in 1943, outlining how water from this river should be divided among them. Kansas claimed that both Nebraska and Colorado were using more than their fair share as per this agreement, causing harm to its own interests by reducing its access to water for agricultural purposes. The court appointed a Special Master who found that while there were some discrepancies in accounting procedures used by each state regarding water consumption, they did not amount to any significant violation of the compact's terms or cause substantial injury to Kansas' interests. Therefore, it recommended denying most claims made by Kansas against Nebraska and Colorado.

The dissenting opinion in the case of State of Kansas v. States of Nebraska and Colorado argued that the majority's decision to impose sanctions on Nebraska for its overuse of water from the Republican River was too harsh. The dissenting justices believed that while Nebraska had indeed violated a compact between the three states regarding use of river water, it had done so unintentionally and without malice. They also pointed out that Nebraska had taken steps to correct its actions once they were brought to light. Therefore, they felt that monetary damages should be sufficient punishment for this violation rather than additional punitive measures imposed by the court's majority ruling.