The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Minnesota v. State of Wisconsin in 1921 dealt with a territorial dispute between the two states over the boundary line running through Lake Superior and Duluth Harbor. The disagreement arose from differing interpretations of an 1846 treaty with Great Britain, which had established the border along "the northwesternmost point" of Lake Superior's shoreline before turning southward down to Mississippi River. Minnesota claimed that this point was further east than what Wisconsin asserted, thus giving it control over more territory including parts of Duluth Harbor and St Louis Bay. Wisconsin argued that historical practice and recognition supported its interpretation while Minnesota contended for a strict reading based on geographical features described in the treaty text itself. The Supreme Court sided with Wisconsin, holding that long-standing acceptance by both states as well as federal authorities gave weight to their claim despite any ambiguity in original wording or mapping errors at time when treaty was signed. This decision affirmed existing boundaries without altering them significantly but clarified legal principles involved such as respect for settled expectations and avoidance unnecessary disruption.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Minnesota v. State of Wisconsin, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant Minnesota permission to file a bill against Wisconsin over boundary disputes. He argued that this was not an appropriate matter for Supreme Court jurisdiction as it did not involve any violation of federal law or constitutional rights and could be resolved through negotiation between states without involving the court system. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where every minor dispute between states would end up in front of the Supreme Court, which would unnecessarily burden its docket and distract from more important cases requiring its attention.