In the 1908 case of State of Washington v. State of Oregon, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over fishing rights in the Columbia River. The state of Washington had enacted laws that limited when and how fish could be caught, which were stricter than those in place in Oregon. Fishermen from Oregon challenged these regulations, arguing they violated their rights to equal protection under the law as well as interstate commerce protections. The court ruled in favor of Washington, stating that it had jurisdiction over its portion of the river and thus could enforce its own fishing laws there without infringing upon any constitutional rights or federal statutes. This decision confirmed states' authority to regulate natural resources within their borders even if such regulation might affect interests across state lines.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Washington v. State of Oregon, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant Oregon sole jurisdiction over a disputed portion of the Columbia River. He argued that historical evidence and past treaties indicated shared sovereignty between both states over this waterway. Furthermore, he contended that practical considerations should also be taken into account when determining jurisdictional boundaries in such cases. For instance, he pointed out how difficult it would be for one state alone to enforce laws and regulations on a river used by residents from multiple states. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of relevant legal principles and historical facts, both Washington and Oregon should have concurrent jurisdiction over this part of Columbia River.