The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, with the United States intervening, in 1920 revolved around a territorial dispute between Oklahoma and Texas over the Red River boundary. The controversy arose due to oil deposits found within this disputed territory which both states claimed ownership over. The federal government also intervened claiming that it held title to these lands under various acts of Congress dating back as far as 1803's Louisiana Purchase Treaty. After extensive review and consideration, the court ruled in favor of Texas based on historical evidence showing that when Congress admitted Texas into the Union in 1845, it recognized all boundaries claimed by its then Republic including those along south bank of Red River - thus making it part of Texan territory.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice McReynolds 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 agreements clearly established Oklahoma as having rightful claim over this territory. Furthermore, he contended that by ignoring these precedents and failing to properly interpret relevant laws, treaties, and interstate compacts in favor of Oklahoma’s claims, the Court was setting a dangerous precedent for future border disputes between states. The justice also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on federal-state relations due to what he viewed as an unjust ruling favoring one state over another without sufficient justification.