In the case of Texas v. Louisiana in 1976, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to resolve a boundary dispute between the two states over an area known as Sabine Lake and its surrounding marshlands. The controversy arose due to differing interpretations of historical treaties and maps that defined state boundaries when Texas joined the Union in 1845. After considering evidence from both sides, including expert testimony on geography and history, Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the court's decision which largely favored Texas' claims. The court ruled that most of Sabine Lake belonged to Texas based on historical precedent set by previous international agreements between Spain and France (which had originally colonized these areas). However, it also held that some parts of adjacent marshland fell within Louisiana’s jurisdiction because they were not part of any navigable waterway under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. Louisiana, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case because it was a political question rather than a legal one. He believed that the dispute between Texas and Louisiana about their shared border in the Gulf of Mexico should be resolved by Congress or through negotiation between states, not by judicial decision-making. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest among justices who might own property or investments in these coastal areas and therefore could benefit from ruling in favor of one state over another. Finally, he criticized his colleagues for relying on outdated precedents to justify their intervention into this interstate conflict instead of acknowledging modern realities such as environmental concerns and economic development pressures along our nation's coastlines.