The U.S. Supreme Court case State of North Dakota v. State of Minnesota in 1920 revolved around a dispute over the effects of drainage operations conducted by Minnesota on lands in North Dakota. The state of North Dakota claimed that these operations caused flooding and damage to its properties, thereby violating its rights as a lower riparian state under international law principles governing interstate rivers. However, the court ruled against North Dakota's claims for two main reasons: firstly, it found no substantial evidence proving that Minnesota’s activities had directly resulted in any significant or unusual flooding; secondly, it held that even if such evidence existed, there was no violation since both states were entitled to reasonable use of their respective territories including water resources within them under common law rules applicable domestically rather than internationally.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of North Dakota v. State of Minnesota, it was argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Minnesota's drainage project would cause substantial injury to North Dakota. The dissenters believed that while some harm might occur, it did not reach a level warranting judicial intervention between states. They also pointed out potential benefits from the project such as improved sanitation and increased agricultural productivity in both states due to better water management. Furthermore, they asserted that if any damage occurred, individual landowners could seek redress through normal legal channels rather than involving entire states in litigation at Supreme Court level. This perspective emphasized respect for state sovereignty and reluctance to interfere with internal affairs unless absolutely necessary.