In The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court was asked to decide a dispute between two states over their respective boundaries. Rhode Island claimed that its boundary with Massachusetts should be set at Narragansett Bay, while Massachusetts argued that it should extend three miles further south into what is now known as Washington County in Rhode Island. After considering arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rhode Island's position and established the boundary line at Narragansett Bay. In doing so, they affirmed the principle that state boundaries are determined by geography rather than political considerations or arbitrary lines drawn on maps. This ruling has been cited numerous times since then as an important precedent for resolving disputes between states regarding their borders.

In the case of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the dissenting opinion was that Rhode Island had no right to bring a suit against Massachusetts in this matter. Chief Justice Taney argued that since both states were members of the Union, they could not sue each other without violating Article III Section 2 Clause 1 which prohibits such suits between two or more states. He further stated that if one state has a claim against another it should be brought before Congress for resolution as provided by Article III Section 2 Clause 2. In conclusion, he believed it would have been better for Rhode Island to pursue its claims through diplomatic channels rather than filing suit in court because doing so would undermine federalism and weaken public confidence in the judicial system's ability to resolve interstate disputes fairly and equitably.