The Supreme Court case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas in 1923 revolved around a territorial dispute between the two states over the Red River boundary. The United States intervened as it had interests in oil reserves located within the disputed territory. The court was tasked with determining which state held jurisdiction over an area known as Greer County, and whether or not this included rights to its natural resources. In their decision, they referred back to an earlier ruling from 1896 where it was determined that Greer County belonged to Oklahoma based on historical treaties with Spain and France regarding boundaries along the Red River. Therefore, any oil found there would also belong to Oklahoma rather than Texas or federal government control.

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 disputed area along the Red River boundary to Texas. He argued that historical evidence and past legal decisions supported Oklahoma's claim over this territory. According to him, both Spain and Mexico had recognized this region as part of their territories before it was ceded to the United States in 1819 through Adams-Onis Treaty. Furthermore, he pointed out that previous court rulings had established that when a river forms a boundary between two states or countries, any changes in its course do not affect existing boundaries unless they occur gradually due to natural causes (a principle known as avulsion). In his view, since there was no proof showing such gradual change in Red River’s course but rather sudden shifts caused by floods or other events which are considered avulsive under law; therefore according to him these should not have resulted in altering state lines favoring Texas.