University v. Finch is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1873. The case involved a dispute between the University of Michigan and a student, John Finch, who had been expelled from the university. Finch had been expelled for refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the United States. Finch argued that the university had violated his constitutional rights by expelling him for refusing to take the oath. The Supreme Court held that the university had the right to expel Finch for refusing to take the oath. The Court reasoned that the university had the right to set its own rules and regulations, and that Finch had voluntarily agreed to abide by those rules when he enrolled in the university. The Court also noted that the university had the right to protect itself from any potential harm that Finch's refusal to take the oath might cause. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the university had the right to expel Finch for refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. The Court reasoned that the university had the right to set its own rules and regulations, and that Finch had voluntarily agreed to abide by those rules when he enrolled in the university.

Justice Field wrote the dissenting opinion in University v. Finch, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of state power. He argued that under the Constitution, states have no authority over private institutions such as universities unless they are incorporated by special act of legislature or charter from Congress. In this case, he noted that there had been no such incorporation or charter granted for the university in question; therefore it should be considered a private institution beyond state control. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there were some sort of legal basis for state interference with private institutions like universities, any attempt at regulation must not interfere with their internal affairs and operations - which is exactly what happened here when California attempted to regulate faculty appointments without consulting those responsible for running the university itself. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating emphatically that "the judgment below should be reversed."