Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query religion and free or establishment returned 43 results.

	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Concurrence]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concurrence]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Opinion]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Opinion]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Opinion]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Dissent]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Dissent]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Dissent]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Opinion]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Dissent]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Syllabus]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Opinion]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN []
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Concurrence]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Syllabus]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Concurrence]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Dissent]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."
	[Syllabus]
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Syllabus]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REID V. COVERT [Concurrence]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause.
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Syllabus]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Opinion]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Syllabus]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Opinion]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Syllabus]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion]
	MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA [Opinion]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	SALAZAR V. BUONO [Syllabus]
	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Concurrence]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Dissent]
	DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Opinion]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent]
	RENO V. ACLU [Concurrence]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Opinion]
	SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM [Opinion]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Opinion]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Syllabus]
	ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC. [Syllabus]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PETERS [Syllabus]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Concurrence]
	LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS V. GATES [Syllabus]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Concurrence]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Opinion]
	PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Syllabus]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Syllabus]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Dissent]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Concurrence]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Opinion]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Concurrence]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK []
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Opinion]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Syllabus]
	MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Opinion]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Syllabus]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Dissent]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WILSON V. NEW [Opinion]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Dissent]
	SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES [Opinion]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Concurrence]
	WIENER V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Dissent]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Dissent]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Syllabus]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	EX PARTE GARLAND [Dissent]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Concurrence]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Dissent]
	[Syllabus]
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	PLEASANT GROVE CITY V. SUMMUM [Syllabus]
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
	TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Concurrence]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Syllabus]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BELMONT [Opinion]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Syllabus]
	BARRON V. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Dissent]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Dissent]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Syllabus]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE [Opinion]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	PALKO V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Opinion]
	STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. []
	KENT V. DULLES [Dissent]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Opinion]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	KIRKPATRICK V. PREISLER [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Syllabus]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Syllabus]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Syllabus]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Opinion]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Syllabus]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Concurrence]
	KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Opinion]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. [Dissent]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Syllabus]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Dissent]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Dissent]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REID V. COVERT [Dissent]
	BOOS V. BARRY [Concurrence]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Opinion]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Dissent]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Dissent]
	TWINING V. STATE [Opinion]
	ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY [Concurrence]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Dissent]
	FLETCHER V. PECK [Syllabus]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Syllabus]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Opinion]
	BURCH V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	MAHER V. ROE [Opinion]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Opinion]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Opinion]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Dissent]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent]
	THORNHILL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	MARSH V. ALABAMA [Dissent]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent]
	SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM [Syllabus]
	OLIVER V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	PRIZE CASES [Opinion]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Opinion]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK []
	UNITED STATES V. KLEIN [Opinion]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Opinion]
	MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Dissent]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. KAHN [Opinion]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Opinion]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Opinion]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Opinion]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Opinion]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	JACOBELLIS V. OHIO [Opinion]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Syllabus]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Dissent]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Dissent]
	TROP V. DULLES [Concurrence]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Syllabus]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Opinion]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Opinion]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Dissent]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Dissent]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Syllabus]
	SHELLEY V. KRAEMER [Opinion]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Opinion]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Dissent]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Syllabus]
	WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO. [Opinion]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY [Dissent]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Opinion]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Syllabus]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Concurrence]
	WALLER V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Opinion]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Dissent]
	MULFORD V. SMITH [Opinion]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Opinion]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. JACKSON [Opinion]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
	GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
	CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause.
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	[Syllabus]
	SALAZAR V. BUONO [Syllabus]
	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC. [Syllabus]
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. [Syllabus]
	SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats.
	NEGUSIE V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	PLEASANT GROVE CITY V. SUMMUM [Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"