In the case of The State of New Jersey v. The People of the State of New York, the Supreme Court was asked to decide a dispute between two states over fishing rights in waters shared by both. Specifically, New Jersey claimed that it had exclusive right to fish in certain areas within its boundaries and sought an injunction against any interference from citizens or authorities from New York. In response, New York argued that it had equal access to these waters under a colonial charter granted by King Charles II centuries earlier. After considering arguments on both sides, the court ultimately ruled in favor of New Jersey’s position and held that while there may have been some ambiguity as to which state owned what portion of this waterway during colonial times, modern-day borders were clear enough for each state's respective rights not be infringed upon by another.

In the case of The State of New Jersey v. The People of the State of New York, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that while it was true that states have certain rights and powers to protect their interests, those rights should not be exercised in such a way as to infringe upon the sovereignty or authority granted by Congress under its power over interstate commerce. In this particular case, he felt that New Jersey's attempt to regulate oyster harvesting on lands within its own boundaries but owned by citizens from another state violated federal law and thus could not stand. Furthermore, he believed that if individual states were allowed to exercise such control over activities occurring across state lines then it would lead to an increase in disputes between them which could ultimately result in civil war or other forms of conflict between them.