Batesville Institute v. Kauffman was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could require a private school to be licensed in order to operate. The case arose when the Batesville Institute, a private school in Arkansas, was sued by the state for failing to obtain a license. The Institute argued that the state's licensing requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the state's licensing requirement did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring that private schools met certain standards of quality and safety, and that the licensing requirement was a reasonable means of achieving that goal. The Court also noted that the Institute had not been denied due process, as it had been given the opportunity to challenge the licensing requirement in court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state's licensing requirement did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court found that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating private schools, and that the licensing requirement was a reasonable means of achieving that goal.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Batesville Institute v. Kauffman, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written, regardless of whether it is fair or equitable. Furthermore, he noted that if one party had been misled by another into signing an agreement they did not understand or fully comprehend, then there were other remedies available for them to pursue outside of voiding the contract entirely. Finally, Justice Field pointed out that while equity courts may have broad powers when dealing with contracts involving minors and those who are mentally incapacitated due to age or infirmity, this case did not involve either situation; thus any attempt by a court to modify the terms of such an agreement would be improper and unlawful under existing laws.