In the case of Texas v. United States et al., 1997, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over water rights between Texas and New Mexico under the Pecos River Compact. The court had previously appointed a River Master to oversee distribution of water from the river according to terms set out in an earlier decree. In this case, Texas claimed that New Mexico was not delivering enough water as required by these terms due to groundwater pumping reducing surface flow into the river. However, New Mexico argued that such pumping was not covered by existing regulations. The Supreme Court sided with Texas, ruling that groundwater pumping which affected surface flows did indeed fall within its jurisdiction and should be accounted for when calculating each state's share of Pecos River waters. This decision clarified how states sharing resources across borders must consider all factors impacting those resources - including indirect ones like groundwater extraction - when fulfilling their obligations under interstate compacts.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting guns in schools exceeded Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The dissenters believed that this interpretation of Congress' powers could potentially lead to an unlimited expansion of federal authority into areas traditionally regulated by states, such as education and crime control. They contended that there must be clear limits on what can be considered interstate commerce; otherwise, virtually any activity could fall within its scope. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that gun possession near schools substantially affects interstate commerce, arguing instead that this connection is too indirect and speculative to justify federal intervention.