In the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 1920, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a boundary dispute between Oklahoma and Texas over an area known as Greer County. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of the Treaty of 1819 between Spain and the U.S., which had ambiguously defined boundaries along the Red River. In this landmark decision, it was ruled that Greer County belonged to Oklahoma based on geographical evidence showing that a significant portion lay northward from where most agreed upon as being part of Texas' border according to treaty terms. This ruling effectively ended nearly half a century-long debate about ownership rights in this region and established clear jurisdictional lines for both states moving forward.

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 past treaties indicated that this territory belonged to Oklahoma, not Texas. Furthermore, he contended that by ignoring these facts and ruling in favor of Texas based on its long-term use and occupation of this area, the Court was essentially condoning an act akin to adverse possession between states - something which he believed should not be permitted under U.S law or international principles governing territorial disputes among nations. Thus, while acknowledging his colleagues' arguments about practicality and stability in border determinations, Holmes maintained that such considerations should never override clear legal entitlements grounded on history and treaty obligations.