University v. People is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1878. The case involved a dispute between the University of Michigan and the people of the state of Michigan. The University of Michigan had been granted a charter by the state legislature in 1817, which granted the university certain rights and privileges. The people of Michigan, however, argued that the charter was unconstitutional and that the university had no right to the privileges it had been granted. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the University of Michigan, ruling that the charter was constitutional and that the university had the right to the privileges it had been granted. The court held that the charter was a contract between the state and the university, and that the state was obligated to uphold the terms of the contract. The court also held that the people of Michigan had no right to interfere with the university's rights and privileges. The decision in University v. People established the principle that a state legislature has the power to grant a charter to a university, and that the university has the right to the privileges granted by the charter. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of university charters.

In University v. People, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state university had the right to sue in federal court for damages caused by an act of its legislature. The majority opinion held that it did not have such a right, as universities are creatures of their respective states and thus cannot bring suit against them without express permission from the state itself. Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that while universities may be creations of their respective states, they should still be allowed to seek redress in federal courts when wronged by those same states. He argued that if universities were denied access to these courts then they would effectively become powerless entities subject only to whatever whims their legislatures chose to impose upon them. Furthermore, he noted that denying access could lead other branches of government within each state—such as cities or counties—to also deny similar rights and privileges which could further weaken any sense of autonomy enjoyed by these institutions.