The Supreme Court case State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, United States, Intervener in 1924 revolved around a territorial dispute between the two states over the Red River boundary. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of an 1819 treaty with Spain which established the southern border for US territory at that time. Oklahoma claimed that it owned all lands northward from the river's south bank while Texas argued its jurisdiction extended to the vegetation line on the northern side (the gradient boundary). The U.S., as intervener, sided with Oklahoma but also claimed ownership over parts of land submerged under water and oil-rich areas along this disputed stretch. In its decision, however, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas' interpretation - establishing 'gradient boundary' theory as a precedent for future cases involving riparian boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to grant ownership rights over a disputed portion of the Red River boundary to Texas. He argued that historical evidence and past treaties clearly established this area as part of Oklahoma territory. Furthermore, he contended that previous decisions by lower courts had already settled this issue in favor of Oklahoma and should be respected by Supreme Court justices. In his view, disregarding these prior rulings undermined legal precedent and created unnecessary confusion about state boundaries across America.