Papasan v. Allain
United States Supreme Court
478 U.S. 265 (1986)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Over 100 years ago, the State of Mississippi (defendant) was granted public lands by the United States government. Under state law, the lands and the funds they generated were used to benefit public schools within the state. Specifically, the funds from particular lands went to the school districts located within the lands. Before being distributed, the funds from the entire state were pooled together, and then the state government divided the funds according to this scheme. The counties within the Chickasaw Cession had had their lands ceded to the United States, and as a result, their schools received reduced funding. School officials and schoolchildren from the Chickasaw Cession (plaintiffs) filed suit against the state, challenging the disparity of school funding between their counties and the rest of Mississippi. The Chickasaw Cession schools claimed that this disparity deprived schoolchildren of the right to a minimally adequate education and equal protection under the law. The schools further argued that strict-scrutiny analysis applied to their case because education was a fundamental right. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the case, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.