Allen v. Wright
United States Supreme Court
468 U.S. 737, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
The Wright family and other parents of African American public-school children (plaintiffs) brought a nationwide class-action suit against the secretary of the treasury and the commissioner of internal revenue at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendants). Allen (defendant), the head of a private school identified in the complaint, intervened as a defendant. The parents argued that the failure of the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to racially segregated private schools caused injury to their children on two grounds. Firstly, the parents alleged that the IRS’s failure to comply with desegregation laws caused them direct harm by creating a climate of stigma against their children. Secondly, the parents alleged that their children’s ability to attend a desegregated school had been directly impaired because the IRS’s failure to remove private schools’ tax-exempt status effectively encouraged the continued segregation of schools. The parents sought declaratory injunctive relief for their claims in federal district court. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the parents lacked standing to bring the suit. The court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
