In the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 1923, the Supreme Court was called upon to settle a boundary dispute between the two states over an area along the Red River. The United States intervened in this case due to its interest in oil reserves located within disputed territory. The court had previously appointed commissioners to survey and mark out boundaries according to historical treaties and documents. However, changes in river course led to confusion about actual ownership rights over certain lands which were rich with oil deposits. The Supreme Court ruled that when a river is used as a boundary line between states and it gradually shifts its bed through natural processes (accretion), then state lines shift accordingly but sudden shifts (avulsion) do not affect boundaries. Therefore, despite any changes in geography caused by movement or flooding from the Red River itself, original land grants remained valid under their initial terms unless specifically renegotiated otherwise. This decision clarified how geographical features like rivers can impact state borders while also highlighting federal interests when valuable resources are involved.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that granted ownership rights to Texas over a disputed portion of land along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. He argued that historical evidence showed an agreement between Native American tribes and U.S. government officials which recognized this area as part of Indian Territory, now known as Oklahoma. Furthermore, he contended that subsequent treaties did not alter these boundaries but rather confirmed them. Therefore, in his view, it was incorrect to award this territory to Texas based on its claim from Spanish sovereignty because such claims were superseded by later agreements made directly with indigenous peoples who inhabited those lands before European colonization.