In the case of State of Louisiana v. State of Mississippi et al., 1995, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over territorial boundaries between the two states. The disagreement arose due to changes in the course of the Mississippi River which had caused confusion about where exactly one state ended and another began. Louisiana claimed that it owned certain lands on its side of an old riverbed while Mississippi argued that those lands were within its jurisdiction because they lay eastward from the current path taken by most waters flowing downriver. After considering historical documents, treaties, and past court decisions related to such boundary disputes, as well as principles established under international law for determining territorial limits when rivers change their courses naturally or through human intervention, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mississippi.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Louisiana v. State of Mississippi et al., 1995, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases and failed to adequately consider historical context. He contended that when determining state boundaries in areas where rivers have shifted course, it is important to take into account both natural changes and human interventions such as levee construction. In this particular case, he believed that a more thorough examination of maps from different periods would show that Louisiana had jurisdiction over certain disputed lands even after shifts in the Mississippi River’s path due to avulsive events (sudden changes). Furthermore, he criticized the majority for not giving enough weight to evidence showing long-term possession by Louisiana and its citizens. Overall, Justice Stevens felt that his colleagues' approach did not provide a fair resolution or uphold principles established in prior boundary dispute cases.