Jackson v. Allen was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1978. The case involved a dispute between two Alabama state prisoners, Jackson and Allen, over the use of a prison library. Jackson had requested access to the library, but Allen had been given priority access. Jackson argued that this violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Allen, finding that the prison's policy of giving priority access to certain prisoners was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the policy was based on legitimate security concerns and that it did not discriminate against Jackson on the basis of race or any other protected class. The Court also noted that Jackson had access to other sources of legal materials, such as the prison's law library and the state's public library system. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the prison's policy of giving priority access to certain prisoners did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that the policy was based on legitimate security concerns and that it did not discriminate against Jackson on the basis of race or any other protected class.

In the case of Jackson v. Allen, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted precedent and failed to properly consider relevant facts. He noted that while it was true that there were some similarities between this case and prior cases, those similarities did not necessarily mean that they should be treated identically. Furthermore, he argued that the Court's decision would have far-reaching implications for other similar cases going forward because it could lead to an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded by stating his belief that Congress intended for employers to make reasonable accommodations when necessary but also wanted them to retain their right to determine how best such accommodations should be made on a case-by-case basis without fear of legal repercussions from courts or agencies like EEOC who might interpret things differently than they do.