In the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, with the United States intervening, in 1921, a dispute arose over the ownership and control of certain lands submerged by waters along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. The Supreme Court was asked to determine which state had jurisdiction over these lands. The court ruled that when it comes to navigable rivers serving as boundaries between states, each state owns up to its half from bank at normal flow level towards river's centerline; however, if there is an island or elevation within this area above water even during high floods (accretion), then such land belongs entirely to whichever side it is closer too. In this particular case involving oil-rich areas along Red River bordering both states - despite being mostly on Texan side but also partially extending into Oklahoman territory - they were deemed accretions belonging solely to Texas due their proximity being nearer than halfway point across river channel at ordinary stage.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to award a portion of the Red River bed to Texas. He argued that there was no clear evidence indicating that Congress intended to grant this land to Texas when it admitted her into Union in 1845. Furthermore, he contended that if such an intention existed, it would have been explicitly stated in legislation or other official documents at that time. According to him, historical practice and common law principles supported Oklahoma’s claim over these lands as they were north of South Bank which is considered boundary under treaty between Spain and United States from 1819. Therefore, he believed that all lands up till thread (middle) should belong exclusively to Oklahoma not just those North of vegetation line on North bank as decided by majority judgement.