The Supreme Court case of State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas in 1924 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. In its decision, the court ruled that when Texas was admitted to statehood, it retained all unappropriated and vacant lands within its borders which included portions of Greer County along with other areas up to the south bank of Red River. Therefore, any land north or attached to this river's south bank belonged to Texas unless specifically ceded by treaty or statute. This ruling effectively resolved a long-standing border conflict between Oklahoma and Texas.

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 boundary to Texas. He argued that historical evidence and past agreements between states should be considered in determining state boundaries rather than relying solely on physical characteristics or changes in river courses. He believed that such an approach would lead to more consistent and fair outcomes, as it respects established legal principles and precedents regarding interstate disputes. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts arising from this ruling due to its implications on other similar cases involving border disputes among states along rivers whose course might change over time.