In the case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, United States Intervener (1924), the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a boundary dispute between Oklahoma and Texas over the Red River. The controversy arose due to changes in the river's course which led both states claiming ownership over certain areas along its banks. The U.S., as an intervener, claimed that it held title to these lands under various federal statutes and treaties with Native American tribes. After examining historical documents and evidence presented by all parties involved, including surveys conducted by government agencies, the court ruled in favor of Oklahoma for most part but also awarded some disputed land to Texas based on where they found "the south bank" historically located according to international law principles governing river boundaries between sovereigns. This decision helped clarify how such disputes should be resolved in future cases involving shifting rivers or other natural features affecting state borders.

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 land to Texas. He argued that historical evidence and previous legal agreements clearly indicated that this territory belonged to Oklahoma, not Texas. The justice contended that by ignoring these factors, the court was setting a dangerous precedent where states' boundaries could be arbitrarily redrawn without proper consideration for established laws or treaties. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts arising from such decisions in future interstate disputes.