Case law · Highest court · Federal

Papasan v. Allain

Decided
July 1, 1986
Docket
85-499
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 9,423 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that the Mississippi Governor and Secretary of State were proper defendants because of their “general supervision” over local officials administration of land set-asides for educational purposes — Okpalobi v. Foster (2001)
  • holding that the Eleventh Amendment precludes claim characterized as breach of a continuing obligation to comply with trust obligations — HCMF Corp. v. Gilmore (1998)
  • holding that on a motion to dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” — In Re Actimmune Marketing Litigation (2009)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we consider the claims of school officials and schoolchildren in 23 northern Mississippi counties that they [*268] are being unlawfully denied the economic benefits of public school lands granted by the United States to the State of Mississippi well over 100 years ago. Specifically, we must determine to what extent these claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and, with respect to those claims that are not barred, if any, whether the complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. r — i The history of public school lands in the United States stretches back over 200 years.[1] Even before the ratification of the Constitution, the Congress of the Confederation initiated a practice with regard to the Northwest Territory[2] which was followed with most other public lands that eventually became States and were admitted to the Union. In particular, the Land Ordinance of 1785, which provided for the survey and sale of the Northwest Territory, “reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township. ...” 1 Laws of the United States 565 (1815).[3] In 1802, when the eastern portion of the [*269] Northwest Territory became what is now the State of Ohio, Congress granted Ohio the lands that had been previously reserved under the 1785 Ordinance for the use of public schools in the State. 2 Stat. 175.[4]

Following the Ohio example of reserving lands for the maintenance of public schools, “ ‘grants were made for common school purposes to each of the public-land States admitted to the Union. Between the years of 1802 and 1846 the grants were of every section sixteen, and, thereafter, of sections sixteen and thirty-six. In some instances, additional sections have been granted.’” Andrus v. Utah, 446 U. S. 500, 506-507, n. 7 (1980) (quoting United States v. Morrison, 240 U. S. 192, 198 (1916) (footnotes omitted)). Thus, the basic Ohio example has been followed with respect to all but a few of the States admitted since then. 446 U. S., at 522-523, n. 4 (Powell, J., dissenting). In addition to the school lands designated in this manner, Congress made provision for townships in which the pertinent section or sections were not available for one reason or another. Thus, Congress generally indemnified States for the missing designated sections, allowing the States to select lands in an amount equal to and in lieu of the designated but unavailable lands. See, e. g., ch. 83, 4 Stat. 179 (1826). See generally Andrus v. Utah, supra, at 507-508; Morrison, supra, at 200-202.

Cite this

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.