The Supreme Court case State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, with the United States as an intervener in 1924, involved a dispute over the ownership and control of oil-rich lands along the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of where exactly the border lay - whether it was on the south bank (as claimed by Texas) or along the river's median line (as argued by Oklahoma). In this case, however, there was also federal involvement because part of these disputed lands were allotted to Native American tribes under U.S. government supervision. The Supreme Court ruled that according to treaties from 1819 and 1828 between Spain/Mexico and U.S., which had established boundaries before either state existed, placed most parts of Red River's south bank within Texan territory but some areas fell into federally controlled land for Native Americans' use.

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 Red River bed to Texas. He argued that historical evidence and previous legal decisions supported Oklahoma's claim. According to him, treaties between Spain and France from 1819 clearly established that all lands northward from Red River belonged to United States territories (later becoming part of Oklahoma). Furthermore, he pointed out that an 1828 treaty between U.S. and Choctaw Nation also recognized this boundary line along Red River as being within U.S./Oklahoma territory. Additionally, he noted past court rulings which held these treaties as valid in determining state boundaries disputes involving riverbeds or islands therein.