Bohanan v. Nebraska is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1885. The case involved a dispute between a Nebraska farmer, John Bohanan, and the state of Nebraska. Bohanan had purchased a tract of land from the state in 1877, but the state later attempted to reclaim the land, claiming that the sale was invalid. Bohanan argued that the state had no right to reclaim the land, as he had already paid for it and had been in possession of it for several years. The Supreme Court agreed with Bohanan, ruling that the state had no right to reclaim the land. The Court held that the state had no authority to revoke the sale, as it had already been completed and Bohanan had been in possession of the land for several years. The Court also held that the state had no right to reclaim the land without providing Bohanan with compensation for his losses. The decision in Bohanan v. Nebraska established an important precedent in property law, as it established that a state cannot revoke a sale of land without providing compensation to the purchaser. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes between landowners and the state.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bohanan v. Nebraska, arguing that the state of Nebraska had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying a citizen their right to due process and equal protection under the law. He argued that while it was true that states have broad powers when it comes to regulating public health and safety, they must still abide by constitutional protections for individuals. In this case, he believed there was no rational basis for why Mr. Bohanan should be denied his license to practice medicine simply because he did not meet certain educational requirements set forth by Nebraska's medical board; such an action constituted arbitrary discrimination against him on account of his race or national origin which is prohibited under both federal and state laws as well as international treaties ratified by Congress. Furthermore, Justice Field noted how other states with similar regulations allowed exceptions based on experience or special qualifications - something which could easily have been done in this case but wasn't even considered before denying Mr. Bohanan's application outright without any chance at appeal or review from a higher court authority.