In the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 1920, the United States Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between these two states over their shared boundary along the Red River. The controversy arose due to differences in interpretation regarding an 1819 treaty with Spain that had originally defined this border. The river's course had changed significantly since then due to natural processes such as erosion and accretion, leading each state to claim ownership over certain lands on its banks. In addition, there were also conflicting claims from private individuals who believed they owned parts of this land based on various grants and sales dating back many years. The U.S government intervened in the case because it held title deeds for some disputed areas under public domain laws and wanted them protected until rightful ownership could be determined. The court ruled that when a river is used as a boundary line between states or nations and changes its course gradually by alluvial processes (erosion or deposition), the boundary follows those changes; but if change occurs suddenly through avulsion (a rapid shift in water flow), then old boundaries remain intact despite any geographical alterations. This decision clarified how borders should be interpreted when marked by rivers subject to physical change.

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 the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. He argued that historical precedent and treaties should be taken into account when determining state boundaries, rather than relying solely on physical geography or natural landmarks such as rivers which can change course over time due to erosion or other natural phenomena. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within the Court’s jurisdiction to alter state lines based on these factors without explicit authorization from Congress. In his view, this ruling could potentially lead to future disputes if river courses continue changing naturally in years ahead.