The Supreme Court case State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, United States, Intervener in 1919 revolved around a territorial dispute between the states of Oklahoma and Texas over the ownership rights to an area known as Greer County. The controversy arose due to conflicting interpretations of the Treaty of 1819 between Spain and the U.S., which ambiguously defined boundaries based on landmarks like rivers that had since changed course naturally. The federal government intervened in this case because it held potential implications for national sovereignty issues. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Greer County belonged to Oklahoma rather than Texas based on historical evidence about river courses at time when treaty was signed with Spain. This ruling established important precedents regarding interpretation treaties and resolution interstate disputes involving land ownership.

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 Texas ownership over a disputed portion of land along their shared border at Red River. He argued that historical evidence and past treaties clearly indicated that this area belonged to Oklahoma, not Texas. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were some ambiguity about which state should have jurisdiction over this territory based on these sources, it would be more appropriate for Congress rather than the Supreme Court to resolve such disputes between states about their boundaries. In his view, allowing judicial decisions like this one to determine state borders could potentially undermine political stability by encouraging other states to bring similar lawsuits in hopes of expanding their own territories at each other’s expense.