The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado in 1921 revolved around a dispute over water rights between the two states, specifically concerning the Laramie River which flows from Colorado into Wyoming. The state of Wyoming claimed that it had prior appropriation to use the river's waters and accused Colorado of diverting too much water for irrigation purposes, thereby violating its rights under interstate law principles. However, after careful consideration, the court ruled in favor of Colorado by a vote of 7-2 on June 5th, 1922. It held that while both states have equal rights to beneficial use of their shared rivers' waters within their boundaries; priority cannot be given based solely on chronological order (first-in-time) but rather must consider equitable apportionment - balancing each state’s needs and uses against potential harm caused to other states sharing those same resources.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant Wyoming an injunction against Colorado's use of water from Laramie River. He argued that there was no clear violation or threat to Wyoming’s rights as both states had a legitimate claim over the river under their respective state laws and constitutions. Furthermore, he emphasized that it is not within Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to decide on matters concerning allocation and distribution of interstate waters unless there is a clear breach or infringement upon one state’s rights by another. In his view, this dispute should have been resolved through negotiations between two states rather than litigation in court because such issues are inherently political in nature involving questions about policy choices which courts are ill-equipped to handle.