In the case of Tennessee v. Virginia in 1902, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to settle a border dispute between the two states. The disagreement arose from differing interpretations of an 1802 compact that set their common boundary line along part of its length at "the extreme height" of a mountain range. Over time, due to geographical changes and inaccuracies in surveying methods used during that period, discrepancies emerged regarding where exactly this line fell on modern maps. Tennessee argued for one interpretation while Virginia advocated for another; both would have affected ownership rights over valuable resources and land parcels within disputed areas. The court ruled unanimously against moving the original boundary lines established by mutual agreement between these two sovereign entities back in 1802 despite any subsequent geological shifts or mapping errors discovered since then. It held that once such compacts are made under constitutional authority they become binding perpetually unless altered by mutual consent or clear legal necessity - neither condition being met here according to justices' findings. This decision reinforced principles about respecting historical agreements among states as well as judicial restraint when it comes to intervening in disputes involving state boundaries unless absolutely necessary.

In the dissenting opinion for Tennessee v. Virginia, 1902, it was argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case as it involved a dispute between two states regarding their boundary lines. The dissenting justices believed that such matters should be resolved through negotiation and agreement between the concerned states rather than being decided by a federal court. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent where every minor disagreement or misunderstanding between states could potentially end up in front of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how previous similar cases were handled which further reinforced their belief that this matter was outside of the court's purview.