In the case of State of Washington v. State of Oregon in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over fishing rights on the Columbia River between these two states. The conflict arose due to differing laws regarding salmon fishing; while Oregon allowed it year-round, Washington had restrictions during certain periods to protect spawning fish. The court ruled that both states have equal and concurrent jurisdiction over the river's waters for regulatory purposes under their respective police powers, but neither state could enforce its laws so as to interfere with those of another state within its own territory. Therefore, fishermen from each state were subject only to their home-state’s regulations when operating on their side of the river.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Washington v. State of Oregon, it was argued that there were significant issues with how the boundary line between Washington and Oregon had been determined. The justice disagreed with the majority's reliance on an 1818 treaty between Britain and America to establish this border, arguing that this document did not provide a clear or definitive description of where exactly this boundary should be drawn. Furthermore, they contended that subsequent surveys conducted in 1855 and 1860 also failed to accurately determine these boundaries due to inconsistencies in their methods and findings. As such, they believed that more weight should have been given to other historical documents which provided clearer descriptions of these borders as well as evidence showing longstanding recognition by both states regarding where these boundaries lay.