In the case of Texas v. Louisiana in 1975, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over the boundary between Texas and Louisiana along their shared coastline. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of how boundaries should be drawn when states are separated by bodies of water that change over time due to natural processes such as erosion and sediment deposition. In this particular case, both states claimed ownership over an area known as Sabine Lake and its surrounding marshlands. The court ruled in favor of Texas, determining that the state's border extended into Sabine Lake up until it met with Louisiana's border at a point defined by Congress in 1845 when Texas was admitted into the Union. This decision was based on historical precedent and legal principles related to riparian rights (rights relating to access and use of water), which dictate that changes in water bodies do not affect established borders unless those changes are sudden or violent. This ruling clarified how borders between states should be determined when they are separated by changing bodies of water, providing guidance for future disputes involving similar circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. Louisiana, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case as it was a dispute over state boundaries and therefore should be resolved by Congress rather than the courts. He contended that Article III of the Constitution did not grant authority to federal courts in such matters, but instead vested power in Congress under Article IV to regulate territories and other property belonging to the United States. Furthermore, he believed that historical precedent supported his view; disputes between states had been settled through negotiation or congressional action rather than judicial intervention throughout much of American history. Thus, according to Justice Douglas' interpretation of constitutional law and historical practice, this boundary dispute fell outside of Supreme Court's purview.