In the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, United States, Intervener in 1919, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a boundary dispute between Oklahoma and Texas over an area known as Greer County. The controversy arose from differing interpretations of the Treaty with Spain in 1819 which defined U.S territories after Louisiana Purchase. While both states claimed sovereignty over this territory based on their respective readings of historical treaties and maps, it was ultimately decided that Greer County belonged to Oklahoma due to its location northward from Red River's south bank - a geographical feature used as reference point for defining boundaries in earlier agreements. However, recognizing that many people had settled there under Texan jurisdiction believing they were residing within Texas borders led court to also rule that these settlers' property rights should be respected despite change in state authority.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant ownership rights over a disputed portion of land along the Red River to Texas. He argued that historical evidence and previous legal decisions did not support this conclusion. Instead, he believed that both states should have shared jurisdiction over this territory due to its location on their mutual border. Furthermore, he contended that any ambiguity in determining state boundaries should be resolved through negotiation between states rather than by unilateral court rulings. This perspective reflects his broader philosophy about judicial restraint and deference towards legislative bodies in resolving complex political disputes.