In the case of State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado et al., 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between Wyoming and Colorado over water rights to the Laramie River. The river originates in Colorado but flows into Wyoming, and both states claimed rights to its use for irrigation purposes. The main issue at hand was whether or not an upstream state (Colorado) could divert water from a shared interstate stream without regard for downstream users in another state (Wyoming). In this landmark decision, the court ruled that although states have sovereignty over their natural resources, they must exercise it with respect to obligations owed under principles of interstate comity - meaning that one state cannot cause substantial injury to another when using shared resources such as rivers. This ruling established important precedents regarding equitable apportionment among states sharing common water sources.

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 while states have rights over their natural resources, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced against other considerations such as interstate commerce and federal law. In this case, he believed that Colorado had a legitimate claim to use some water from Laramie River for irrigation purposes because it was in line with its policy on conservation and development. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no clear legal principles or precedents supporting Wyoming’s exclusive right over the river since it flows through both states. Therefore, he concluded that granting an injunction would unfairly favor one state over another without sufficient justification.