The Supreme Court case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas in 1922 revolved around a territorial dispute between the two states regarding their shared border along the Red River. The United States intervened as it held interests in certain lands and riverbeds involved in the conflict. The court was tasked with determining which state had jurisdiction over an area known as Greer County, historically claimed by both states due to ambiguities in defining where exactly the south bank of the Red River lay - this being their agreed boundary line according to an earlier treaty with Spain (the Adams-Onís Treaty). After considering historical documents, treaties, and physical characteristics of the disputed territory, including changes caused by avulsion or gradual erosion, Justice Van Devanter delivered for a unanimous court that Texas's claim extended only up to its southern bank but not beyond into what is now recognized as Greer County; thus ruling favorably for Oklahoma.

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 precedent and international law should have been considered more heavily in determining which state had rightful claim over this territory. Specifically, he pointed out that previous treaties between Spain and France as well as later agreements between Mexico and United States established boundaries based on shifting riverbeds rather than fixed geographical markers. Therefore, according to these principles, any changes in course by the Red River would not alter previously agreed upon borders between states or nations. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for federal courts to intervene in disputes involving interstate boundaries unless there were clear violations against constitutional law or federal statutes involved.