The Supreme Court case Virginia v. Maryland in 1957 revolved around a dispute over the rights to the Potomac River, which forms part of the border between these two states. The disagreement was rooted in historical claims dating back to colonial charters and subsequent agreements made during the formation of Washington D.C., with both states asserting ownership and control over different parts or aspects of this waterway. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling from 1877 that had granted Virginia full riparian rights (the right to use adjacent waters) on its side of the river while maintaining Maryland's sovereignty over most of it. This meant that although Maryland technically owned much of this body, Virginia could still make reasonable use out if it for purposes like navigation or fishing without needing permission from Maryland.

In the dissenting opinion for Virginia v. Maryland, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have original jurisdiction over this case as it involves a dispute between states about their boundaries. The dissenters believed that such disputes are political in nature and thus outside of the purview of judicial resolution. They contended that these types of issues should be resolved by Congress or through negotiation between the states themselves. Furthermore, they disagreed with how majority interpreted historical documents to determine boundary lines, arguing instead for an interpretation more favorable to Virginia's claims.