The Supreme Court case State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, United States, Intervener in 1923 was a dispute over the ownership and control of certain oil-rich lands along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of an 1819 treaty with Spain that established the southern border for U.S territory. The court ruled in favor of Texas by defining its northern boundary as being along the south bank (rather than midway) of the Red River, thus granting it possession rights to these valuable lands. This decision also clarified federal versus state jurisdiction over interstate boundaries and navigable waterways within them.

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 historical evidence and previous legal decisions supported Oklahoma's claim over this territory. Specifically, he pointed out that treaties from 1819 and 1828 between Spain/Mexico and United States clearly defined boundaries in favor of Oklahoma’s claim. Moreover, he noted that Congress had recognized these treaties when it organized territories into states later on; therefore, they should be considered binding in this dispute as well. Furthermore, Justice McReynolds contended that past Supreme Court rulings have consistently upheld state sovereignty over river beds within their borders unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress - which was not done here according to him.