Gaines et al. v. Hale et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of racial discrimination in the United States. The case involved a dispute between a group of African-American students and the state of Missouri. The students had applied to the University of Missouri Law School, but were denied admission due to their race. The students argued that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, finding that the state of Missouri had violated the Equal Protection Clause by denying the students admission to the law school. The Court held that the state had a duty to provide equal educational opportunities to all citizens, regardless of race. The Court also held that the state could not use race as a factor in determining admission to the law school. The decision in Gaines et al. v. Hale et al. was an important step in the fight for racial equality in the United States. The Court's ruling established that states could not discriminate against citizens based on race, and that all citizens had the right to equal educational opportunities. This decision was a major victory for civil rights activists and helped to pave the way for further progress in the fight for racial equality.

In Gaines et al. v. Hale et al., the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that required African American students to attend segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that such laws did not violate this clause, but Justice Harlan dissented from this decision and argued that segregation in public education is inherently unequal and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote: "The arbitrary separation of citizens, on account of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with civil freedom; it indicates at once their inferior social status and their exclusion from all participation in political power." In his dissent he argued further that states cannot deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under law regardless if there exists separate facilities for different races as long as those facilities are equal in quality. Thus he concluded by stating “the enforced separation…is per se inequality” which violates both natural justice and constitutional rights granted by our founding fathers when they adopted our Constitution over 150 years ago