skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Did you mean women or woman and rights's or abortion?

Your query ((women or woman) and rights) or abortion returned 38 results.

1000 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 ROE V. WADE
[Opinion]
1000 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Opinion]
1000 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Opinion]
997 DOE V. BOLTON
[Opinion]
991 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
963 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Dissent]
939 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Opinion]
932 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
932 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
930 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Dissent]
924 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
913 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Opinion]
893 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Opinion]
861 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
861 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
856 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
856 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
819 MAHER V. ROE
[Opinion]
804 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Syllabus]
798
[Syllabus]
776 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
776 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
763 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
763 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
750 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Opinion]
744 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Syllabus]
744 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
737 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Dissent]
713 MAHER V. ROE
[Dissent]
696 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
696 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
696 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
687 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
687 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
687 DOE V. BOLTON
[Concurrence]
678 STENBERG V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
678 GONZALES V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
659
[Syllabus]
659 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
659 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Syllabus]
659 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
626 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Dissent]
626 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
613 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
613 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
613 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
600 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concurrence]
570 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concurrence]
570 ROE V. WADE
[Dissent]
570 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Syllabus]
555 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
555 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Syllabus]
555 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Syllabus]
555 BEAL V. DOE
[Opinion]
555 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
537 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
537 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
518 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
518 ROE V. WADE
[Syllabus]
518 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
498 BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993).
[Syllabus]
498 THORNBURGH V. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGISTS
[Concurrence]
475 AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG.
[Syllabus]
475 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Opinion]
475 DOE V. BOLTON
[Syllabus]
449 POELKER V. DOE
[Dissent]
449 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Concurrence]
449 POELKER V. DOE
[Opinion]
420 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
420 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
420 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concurrence]
388 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Syllabus]
347 SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
347 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
347 WHALEN V. ROE
[Opinion]
347 DOE V. BOLTON
[Dissent]
347 MAHER V. ROE
[Syllabus]
347 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Dissent]
347 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concurrence]
299 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
299 BEAL V. DOE
[Dissent]
299 DOE V. BOLTON
[Concurrence]
299 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY
[Dissent]
299 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
299 DOE V. BOLTON
[Dissent]
299 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Concurrence]
299 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
299 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Opinion]
299 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
299 MAHER V. ROE
[Concurrence]
236 SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997).
[Syllabus]
236
[Syllabus]
236
[Syllabus]
236 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
236 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Dissent]
236 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
236 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
236 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
236 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE
[Opinion]
236 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
236 LINMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO
[Opinion]
236 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
236 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE
[Dissent]
149 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
149
[Syllabus]
149 LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Opinion]
149 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Concurrence]
149 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Dissent]
149 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Concurrence]
149 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
149 HEFFRON V. INTERNATIONAL SOC'Y FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
[Opinion]
149 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Dissent]
149 CRAIG V. BOREN
[Opinion]
149 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Dissent]
149 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
149 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. V. PENA
[Opinion]
149 BEAL V. DOE
[Syllabus]
149 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Concurrence]
149 BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
149 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Opinion]
149 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT
[Opinion]
149 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Opinion]
149 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
149 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
149 ROE V. WADE
[Concurrence]
149 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[]
149 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concurrence]
149 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Concurrence]
149 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Opinion]
149 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Dissent]
149 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Opinion]
149 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Concurrence]
149 MARSH V. CHAMBERS
[Dissent]
149 JACOBELLIS V. OHIO
[Opinion]
149 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Concurrence]
149 FRISBY V. SCHULTZ
[Opinion]
149 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Opinion]
149 CITY OF MOBILE V. BOLDEN
[Concurrence]
1000
[Syllabus]
666
[Syllabus]
583 BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993).
[Syllabus]
485 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
459 SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
457
[Syllabus]
425 STENBERG V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
425 GONZALES V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
363 SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997).
[Syllabus]
348 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
303
[Syllabus]
297 AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG.
[Syllabus]
281
[Syllabus]
277 UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
[Syllabus]
214 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
168 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
167 TEXAS V. COBB
[Syllabus]
Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
167 BOND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
155 CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
155 UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).
[Syllabus]
140 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
140 MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
[Syllabus]
140 NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS
[Syllabus]
Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
140 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
140 CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES
[Syllabus]
121 ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)
[Syllabus]
93 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS
[Syllabus]
When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
93 WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES
[Syllabus]
93 CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. V. KING
[Syllabus]
The RICO provision forbidding "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," 18 U. S. C. ┬ž1962(c), applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner-whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate authority.
93 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
93 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
93 HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
[Syllabus]
93 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
93 BURLINGTON N. & S. F.áR.áCO. V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
93 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Syllabus]
Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
93 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
93
[Syllabus]
93 RIVERA V. ILLINOIS
[Syllabus]