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"

Your query religion and free or establishment returned 43 results.

1000 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
926 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Opinion]
893 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
871 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
856 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Dissent]
835 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
835 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
824 MARSH V. CHAMBERS
[Dissent]
824 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Dissent]
798 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Concurrence]
783 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Dissent]
776 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Dissent]
776 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
763 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Dissent]
763 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concurrence]
744 LYNCH V. DONNELLY
[Opinion]
737 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Opinion]
737 LYNCH V. DONNELLY
[Dissent]
728 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
728 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
722 HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
722 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Concurrence]
713 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
704 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Opinion]
696 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Dissent]
687 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Opinion]
687 ENGEL V. VITALE
[Opinion]
687 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Opinion]
678 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Dissent]
670 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Opinion]
670 MUELLER V. ALLEN
[Opinion]
670 SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE
[Opinion]
670 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Opinion]
670 THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
[Dissent]
659 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Dissent]
659 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Dissent]
659 WELSH V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
648 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Opinion]
648 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Opinion]
637 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Dissent]
637 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Dissent]
637 MARSH V. CHAMBERS
[Opinion]
626 WIDMAR V. VINCENT
[Opinion]
613 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Opinion]
613 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Concurrence]
600 SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE
[Dissent]
600 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
600 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Syllabus]
600 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Concurrence]
585 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
585 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.
585 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Concurrence]
585 MITCHELL V. HELMS
[Syllabus]
585 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Concurrence]
570 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Dissent]
570 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Opinion]
570 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Concurrence]
570 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Concurrence]
555 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Opinion]
555 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Dissent]
537 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Opinion]
537 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Opinion]
537 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Opinion]
518 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Opinion]
518 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
518 CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH
[Opinion]
518 LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Opinion]
518 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[]
518 LYNCH V. DONNELLY
[Concurrence]
498 AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997).
[Syllabus]
498 HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
498 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Concurrence]
475 ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN
[Syllabus]
475 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Syllabus]
475 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Concurrence]
475 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
475 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Opinion]
475 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Dissent]
475 HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
475 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
475 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Concurrence]
475 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Dissent]
449 ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
[Syllabus]
449 CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995).
[Syllabus]
449 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.
449 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Dissent]
449 LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Concurrence]
449 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Opinion]
449 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Opinion]
449 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Concurrence]
449 STONE V. GRAHAM
[Opinion]
449 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
449 HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA
[Opinion]
449 WIDMAR V. VINCENT
[Dissent]
420 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."
420
[Syllabus]
420 MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.
[Syllabus]
420 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
420 ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[Concurrence]
420 MUELLER V. ALLEN
[Dissent]
420 SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE
[Syllabus]
420 LYNCH V. DONNELLY
[Syllabus]
420 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
420 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Syllabus]
420 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Opinion]
420 MARSH V. CHAMBERS
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 VAN ORDEN V. PERRY
[Syllabus]
388 BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
388 WELSH V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
388 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
388 REID V. COVERT
[Concurrence]
388 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
388 ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC.
[Opinion]
388 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS
[Concurrence]
388 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
388 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Dissent]
388 CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART
[Opinion]
388 ZORACH V. CLAUSON
[Opinion]
388 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Concurrence]
388 ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
[Opinion]
388 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Dissent]
388 WIDMAR V. VINCENT
[Syllabus]
347
[Syllabus]
347 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.
347 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
347 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
347 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Syllabus]
347 THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
[Opinion]
347 MCDANIEL V. PATY
[Syllabus]
347 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Dissent]
347 YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC.
[Opinion]
347 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Syllabus]
347 VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC.
[Syllabus]
347 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Opinion]
347 ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS
[Concurrence]
347 UNITED STATES V. PINK
[Opinion]
347 MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA
[Opinion]
347 GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK
[Opinion]
347 ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
[Dissent]
299 SALAZAR V. BUONO
[Syllabus]
299 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.
299 ERIE V. PAPíS 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?
299 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?
299 BOWSHER V. SYNAR
[Concurrence]
299 SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ
[Opinion]
299 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Opinion]
299 STONE V. GRAHAM
[Dissent]
299 DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN
[Opinion]
299 EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS
[Concurrence]
299 MUELLER V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
299 WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
[Dissent]
299 SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR
[Dissent]
299 RENO V. ACLU
[Concurrence]
299 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
299 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE
[Opinion]
299 SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM
[Opinion]
299 EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS
[Opinion]
299 BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY
[Opinion]
299 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[Opinion]
299 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
299 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Syllabus]
236 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?
236 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.
236 HIBBS V. WINN
[Syllabus]
236 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
236 GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
236 UNITED STATES V. PETERS
[Syllabus]
236 INS V. CHADHA
[Dissent]
236 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Concurrence]
236 LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER
[Opinion]
236 ILLINOIS V. GATES
[Syllabus]
236 ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG
[Dissent]
236 ALDEN V. MAINE
[Dissent]
236 LUTHER V. BORDEN
[Dissent]
236 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
236 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
236 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
236 BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC.
[Concurrence]
236 MUNN V. ILLINOIS
[Opinion]
236 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Dissent]
236 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
236 PLESSY V. FERGUSON
[Opinion]
236 THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
[Syllabus]
236 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Syllabus]
236 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Concurrence]
236 HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
236 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO.
[Opinion]
236 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
236 BOWEN V. ROY
[Opinion]
236 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
236 AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC.
[Opinion]
236 PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON
[Opinion]
236 CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH
[Concurrence]
236 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Syllabus]
236 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY
[Opinion]
236 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD
[Syllabus]
236 LEMON V. KURTZMAN
[Syllabus]
236 ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
[Dissent]
236 SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES
[Opinion]
236 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Opinion]
236 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Dissent]
236 UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER
[Dissent]
236 WELSH V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
236 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Dissent]
236 MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
[Dissent]
236 MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN
[Opinion]
236 YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC.
[Concurrence]
236 PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN
[Opinion]
236 ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC.
[Concurrence]
236 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[]
236 ALLEN V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
236 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Opinion]
236 EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD
[Concurrence]
236 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
236 EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS
[Concurrence]
236 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Opinion]
236 ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC.
[Syllabus]
236 MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND
[Opinion]
236 EVANS V. ABNEY
[Opinion]
236 STONE V. GRAHAM
[Syllabus]
236 PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE
[Dissent]
236 SCALES V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
236 WILSON V. NEW
[Opinion]
236 VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO.
[Opinion]
236 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY
[Dissent]
236 SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES
[Opinion]
236 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
236 CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE
[Dissent]
236 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Concurrence]
236 WIENER V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
236 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
236 ENGEL V. VITALE
[Dissent]
236 JOHNSON V. ROBISON
[Opinion]
236 BOWEN V. ROY
[Concurrence]
236 CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
236 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Dissent]
236 YICK WO V. HOPKINS
[Syllabus]
236 EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS
[Syllabus]
236 ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
236 A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
236 HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG
[Opinion]
236 EX PARTE GARLAND
[Dissent]
236 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD
[Concurrence]
236 WIDMAR V. VINCENT
[Concurrence]
236 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
236 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
236 PLESSY V. FERGUSON
[Dissent]
149
[Syllabus]
149 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.
149 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD.
[Syllabus]
149
[Syllabus]
149 WACHOVIA BANK, N.†A. V. SCHMIDT
[Syllabus]
149 PLEASANT GROVE CITY V. SUMMUM
[Syllabus]
149 HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995).
[Syllabus]
149 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?"
149 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.
149
[Syllabus]
149
[Syllabus]
149
[Syllabus]
149 LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995).
[Syllabus]
149 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?
149 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
149 HOLDEN V. HARDY
[Opinion]
149 MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN
[Dissent]
149 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
149 GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER
[Dissent]
149 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
149 C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN
[Concurrence]
149 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON
[Opinion]
149 AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC.
[Dissent]
149 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Dissent]
149 COHENS V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
149 SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES
[Syllabus]
149 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Opinion]
149 YATES V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
149 UNITED STATES V. BELMONT
[Opinion]
149 ZORACH V. CLAUSON
[Syllabus]
149 BARRON V. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE
[Syllabus]
149 JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
[Dissent]
149 NGUYEN V. INS
[Dissent]
149 YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC.
[Syllabus]
149 MAHAN V. HOWELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE
[Opinion]
149 EX PARTE QUIRIN
[Opinion]
149 REID V. COVERT
[Opinion]
149 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Opinion]
149 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
149 PALKO V. CONNECTICUT
[Opinion]
149 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Opinion]
149 STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
149 BERGER V. NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
149 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Dissent]
149 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[]
149 KENT V. DULLES
[Dissent]
149 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Opinion]
149 FUENTES V. SHEVIN
[Opinion]
149 CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT
[Syllabus]
149 UNITED STATES V. QUARLES
[Opinion]
149 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Opinion]
149 MUNN V. ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
149 KIRKPATRICK V. PREISLER
[Syllabus]
149 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
149 EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING
[Syllabus]
149 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Opinion]
149 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[Syllabus]
149 MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN
[Syllabus]
149 GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
[Dissent]
149 UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY
[Opinion]
149 CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH
[Syllabus]
149 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 MORGAN V. VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
149 LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Syllabus]
149 GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER
[Concurrence]
149 KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS
[Dissent]
149 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Opinion]
149 MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS
[Opinion]
149 LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
149 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST.
[Dissent]
149 PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION
[Syllabus]
149 PATTON V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
149 GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
149 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
149 IN RE NEAGLE
[Dissent]
149 STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
149 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Dissent]
149 BOWSHER V. SYNAR
[Dissent]
149 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS
[Concurrence]
149 AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC.
[Dissent]
149 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY
[Opinion]
149 REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE
[Opinion]
149 HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 REID V. COVERT
[Dissent]
149 BOOS V. BARRY
[Concurrence]
149 HAMMER V. DAGENHART
[Opinion]
149 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
149 BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH
[Dissent]
149 RUST V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
149 WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
149 ZORACH V. CLAUSON
[Dissent]
149 TWINING V. STATE
[Opinion]
149 ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY
[Concurrence]
149 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Dissent]
149 FLETCHER V. PECK
[Syllabus]
149 MAHAN V. HOWELL
[Syllabus]
149 MULLER V. OREGON
[Opinion]
149 BURCH V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
149 MAHER V. ROE
[Opinion]
149 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concurrence]
149 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Opinion]
149 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD
[Opinion]
149 PENNOYER V. NEFF
[Dissent]
149 SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR
[Dissent]
149 THORNHILL V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
149 MARSH V. ALABAMA
[Dissent]
149 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
[Dissent]
149 SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM
[Syllabus]
149 OLIVER V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
149 PRIZE CASES
[Opinion]
149 LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
[Opinion]
149 DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
149 GREER V. SPOCK
[Opinion]
149 PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 EVANS V. NEWTON
[Dissent]
149 CLINTON V. JONES
[Opinion]
149 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Opinion]
149 ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Concurrence]
149 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[]
149 UNITED STATES V. KLEIN
[Opinion]
149 WALLACE V. JAFFREE
[Dissent]
149 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Opinion]
149 MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS
[Dissent]
149 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Dissent]
149 MARSH V. CHAMBERS
[Dissent]
149 UNITED STATES V. KAHN
[Opinion]
149 MAHAN V. HOWELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
[Opinion]
149 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
149 GITLOW V. PEOPLE
[Opinion]
149 UNITED STATES V. FORDICE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
149 ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
149 CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT
[Opinion]
149 BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
149 BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN
[Dissent]
149 CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
[Opinion]
149 EVANS V. NEWTON
[Opinion]
149 SAENZ V. ROE
[Opinion]
149 MORRISON V. OLSON
[Opinion]
149 UNITED STATES V. FORDICE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 JACOBELLIS V. OHIO
[Opinion]
149 GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER
[Dissent]
149 HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
149 MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
[Opinion]
149 SCALES V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
149 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Concurrence]
149 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Dissent]
149 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO
[Opinion]
149 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY
[Opinion]
149 PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE
[Syllabus]
149 UNITED STATES V. QUARLES
[Dissent]
149 SAENZ V. ROE
[Dissent]
149 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Syllabus]
149 GREER V. SPOCK
[Dissent]
149 WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH
[Dissent]
149 TROP V. DULLES
[Concurrence]
149 YATES V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
149 ENGEL V. VITALE
[Syllabus]
149 BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
149 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Dissent]
149 BUTZ V. ECONOMOU
[Opinion]
149 UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER
[Opinion]
149 ROMER V. EVANS
[Dissent]
149 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
149 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Dissent]
149 GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
149 ADAIR V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
149 UNITED STATES V. PINK
[Dissent]
149 NGUYEN V. INS
[Opinion]
149 SCOTT V. SANDFORD
[Dissent]
149 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Dissent]
149 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Dissent]
149 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE
[Syllabus]
149 SHELLEY V. KRAEMER
[Opinion]
149 NGUYEN V. INS
[Syllabus]
149 AGUILAR V. FELTON
[Dissent]
149 WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO
[Dissent]
149 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Opinion]
149 PEREZ V. BROWNELL
[Dissent]
149 BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY
[Syllabus]
149 WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO.
[Opinion]
149 LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
[Concurrence]
149 HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY
[Dissent]
149 MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
[Dissent]
149 SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES
[Dissent]
149 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Syllabus]
149 UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK
[Opinion]
149 NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
149 COHENS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
149 WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH
[Syllabus]
149 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Syllabus]
149 UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ
[Opinion]
149 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Dissent]
149 SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL
[Concurrence]
149 WALLER V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
149 SAENZ V. ROE
[Dissent]
149 OREGON V. MITCHELL
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
149 REYNOLDS V. SIMS
[Opinion]
149 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Syllabus]
149 MAXWELL V. DOW
[Dissent]
149 MULFORD V. SMITH
[Opinion]
149 SHERBERT V. VERNER
[Concurrence]
149 METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
[Opinion]
149 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Concurrence]
149 UNITED STATES V. JACKSON
[Opinion]
1000 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.
790 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.
790 CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995).
[Syllabus]
743 ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
[Syllabus]
713
[Syllabus]
669 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?
616 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
584
[Syllabus]
572 HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.
[Syllabus]
487 AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997).
[Syllabus]
485
[Syllabus]
463 ARIZONA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION V.WINN
[Syllabus]
461
[Syllabus]
419 HIBBS V. WINN
[Syllabus]
411
[Syllabus]
411 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."
411 MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.
[Syllabus]
387 CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
379
[Syllabus]
379 VAN ORDEN V. PERRY
[Syllabus]
377 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?
358 CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997).
[Syllabus]
338 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.
292 ERIE V. PAPíS 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?
292
[Syllabus]
292 SALAZAR V. BUONO
[Syllabus]
292 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.
230 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
230 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.
230 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.
146 LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995).
[Syllabus]
146 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?
146 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.
146
[Syllabus]
146
[Syllabus]
146
[Syllabus]
146 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD.
[Syllabus]
146 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.
146 NEGUSIE V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
146 PLEASANT GROVE CITY V. SUMMUM
[Syllabus]
146 WACHOVIA BANK, N.†A. V. SCHMIDT
[Syllabus]
146 HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995).
[Syllabus]
146 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?"