In the case of United States v. Texas et al., 1941, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between the U.S. government and the state of Texas. The controversy arose from an area known as "Chamizal Tract," which was originally part of Mexico but became disputed territory after changes in Rio Grande's course, which served as a boundary line under an 1848 treaty between Mexico and U.S.. In this case, Texas claimed that it had jurisdiction over Chamizal Tract since its admission to Union in 1845 while US argued that it retained control due to international obligations with Mexico. The court held that when Texas entered into union with United States, all foreign relations powers were delegated to federal government including resolution of border disputes arising out from treaties with other nations; thus making federal government responsible for Chamizal tract despite any claims by State authorities or private parties.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Texas et al., 1941, Justice Roberts argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the case as it was a matter of state law. He contended that Texas had sovereign rights to control its own water resources and should be allowed to do so without interference from Washington D.C. Furthermore, he disagreed with his colleagues' interpretation of interstate commerce laws, asserting they were being applied too broadly in this instance. In his view, these laws were meant to regulate trade between states rather than dictate how individual states manage their natural resources. Thus, he believed that by ruling in favor of the U.S., the Supreme Court was overstepping its constitutional authority and infringing upon states' rights.