Arkansas v. Texas et al.
In a suit by Arkansas against Texas over a foundation's contract with the University of Arkansas, the Court held that the suit was between two states and that the Foundation was not an indispensable party.· AI-written
346 U.S. 368 · No. ORIG · 1953 term · Warren Court
Decided Nov 16, 1953 · argued Oct 21, 1953
Judicial power · Judicial administration: Supreme Court's original jurisdiction
Majority opinion: William Douglas
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Stay, petition, or motion granted. Arkansas won.
What this ruling means
Granted: the Supreme Court gave the party what it asked for, such as a stay or an order.
Arkansas was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U.S. 368 (1953), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1953. It was brought in the Supreme Court directly under the Court's original jurisdiction, as a suit filed by the state of Arkansas against the state of Texas. The suit concerned a contract between the Texas-based William Buchanan Foundation and the University of Arkansas which provided that the Foundation would provide $500,000 to the university's Arkansas State Medical Center for construction of a new floor. Arkansas submitted a motion for leave to file a complaint with the Supreme Court, alleging that Texas was interfering with its contract.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ultimately held that the underlying suit was between two states, and that the Foundation was not an indispensable party to the suit. The Court also held that the University of Arkansas was an "official state instrumentality" under Arkansas law, and that as a result, "for purposes of our original jurisdiction, any injury under the contract to the University is an injury to Arkansas." Accordingly, the Court continued the motion filed by Arkansas to permit the ongoing litigation regarding the legality of the William Buchanan Foundation providing funding to the Arkansas hospital under Texas law. Justice William O. Douglas delivered the majority opinion, and Justice Robert H. Jackson authored a dissenting opinion.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1953 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William DouglasWrote the majority opinion
Hugo BlackJoined the majority
Earl WarrenJoined the majority
Harold BurtonJoined the majority
Stanley ReedJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Robert JacksonWrote a dissent
Felix FrankfurterJoined a dissent
Tom ClarkJoined a dissent
Sherman MintonJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- ArkansasState (Arkansas)
- Respondent
- Texas et al.State (Texas)
- Reached the Court by
- Original jurisdiction (filed directly in the Supreme Court)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 (original jurisdiction)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Nov 16, 1953DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: stay, petition, or motion granted. Arkansas won.
- Oct 21, 1953ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedFiledFiled · Filed directly in the Supreme Court, under its original jurisdiction.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
9 other argued cases since 1946 on judicial administration: Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, newest first.
- Mississippi, et al. v. Louisiana et al.506 U.S. 73Dec 14, 1992 · 506 U.S. 73Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- South Carolina v. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury465 U.S. 367Feb 22, 1984 · 465 U.S. 367Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Texas v. New Mexico462 U.S. 554Jun 17, 1983 · 462 U.S. 554Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- California v. Arizona et al.440 U.S. 59Feb 22, 1979 · 440 U.S. 59Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Pennsylvania v. New Jersey426 U.S. 660Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 660Judicial power5–27–2 band
- United States v. Nevada et al.412 U.S. 534Jun 11, 1973 · 412 U.S. 534Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Virginia v. Maryland355 U.S. 269Dec 16, 1957 · 355 U.S. 269Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Louisiana354 U.S. 515Jun 24, 1957 · 354 U.S. 515Judicial power7–0Unanimous band
- Ex Parte Fahey, Federal Home Loan Bank Commissioner, et al.332 U.S. 258Jun 23, 1947 · 332 U.S. 258Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.