In the case of Virginia v. Tennessee, 1894, the Supreme Court was asked to settle a boundary dispute between these two states. The controversy centered on whether an agreement made in 1803 regarding their shared border was constitutionally valid or not. Virginia argued that it wasn't because such agreements required Congressional approval according to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from entering into any "Agreement or Compact with another State" without Congress's consent. However, Tennessee contended that this clause only applied when such agreements would increase state power at federal expense and thus didn't apply here as no threat to federal supremacy existed. The court sided with Tennessee ruling that interstate compacts do not always require congressional consent; only those which might affect national sovereignty do so. It held that since the compact merely settled a pre-existing boundary line rather than creating new political rights or obligations for either state vis-à-vis each other or against third parties (including Federal Government), it did not fall within purview of said constitutional provision requiring Congressional approval for inter-state compacts/agreements.

In the dissenting opinion for Virginia v. Tennessee, Justice Field disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Constitution regarding state boundaries. He argued that once a boundary line between states has been established and recognized by both parties involved, it cannot be altered without mutual consent even if it was originally incorrectly marked. According to him, this principle should apply regardless of whether or not Congress had given its approval at any point in time. The justice believed that allowing unilateral changes would lead to instability and potential disputes among states over their borders which could have serious consequences for inter-state relations within the country as a whole.