The U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado in 2017 revolved around a dispute over the waters of the Rio Grande River, which flows through all three states. The state of Texas claimed that New Mexico was violating the Rio Grande Compact - an agreement made between Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas in 1938 to equitably divide the river's water - by allowing farmers in southern New Mexico to pump groundwater connected to the river before it reached Texas. This action allegedly resulted in less water reaching downstream users than agreed upon under compact terms. In response, New Mexico argued that its obligations were only towards delivering a certain amount of water at a specific location near its border with Texas rather than ensuring delivery within Texan borders itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, disagreed with the majority's decision to allow Texas' lawsuit against New Mexico over water rights to proceed in the Supreme Court. They argued that under the Rio Grande Compact of 1938 - an agreement between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas on sharing water from the Rio Grande River - disputes should be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. The justices contended that allowing such cases to bypass lower courts undermines their role in interpreting state law and resolving factual disputes before they reach higher courts. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent where states could sue each other directly at Supreme Court level without first going through lower federal or state courts.