In the case of Texas v. United States in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over the boundary between Texas and Louisiana in relation to oil-rich lands submerged under the Gulf of Mexico. The controversy arose after Congress passed legislation that extended each state's boundaries three miles into sea from their coastline, but also specified that this did not apply where historical boundaries had been established differently. Texas claimed its border extended further out due to an 1845 resolution annexing it as a U.S territory which defined its coastal boundary at three leagues (approximately nine nautical miles) from land. The Supreme Court held that despite this earlier resolution, subsequent actions by both states and federal authorities demonstrated acceptance of a smaller area for Texas' offshore jurisdiction - specifically only extending three marine miles into sea like other states. Therefore, they concluded that these later practices effectively superseded any previous claims made by Texas based on older laws or resolutions.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. United States, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to intervene in state reapportionment cases was a dangerous overreach of judicial power. He contended that such matters should be left to elected officials and not unelected judges. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential consequences of this ruling on states' rights and federalism principles, arguing it could lead to an imbalance of power between different branches and levels of government. He also questioned whether there were clear standards for determining when a district's population is too unequal or what constitutes fair representation, suggesting these are inherently political questions best resolved through democratic processes rather than court rulings.