Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query education returned 59 results.

	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Concurrence]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent]
	SLOCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY [Dissent]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Concurrence]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Concurrence]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. SWANN [Syllabus]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Syllabus]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Opinion]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Opinion]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	SLOCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	SLOCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY [Opinion]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	SLOCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY [Dissent]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION V. LAFLEUR [Dissent]
	SWANN V. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Syllabus]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Concurrence]
	NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. SWANN [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Concurrence]
	WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent]
	BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	FLORENCE COUNTY SCH. DIST. FOUR V. CARTER, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). [Syllabus]
	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. [Syllabus]
	CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F. [Syllabus]
	OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. I—011V. FALVO [Syllabus] Peer grading-where students score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teacher explains the correct answers to the class-does not violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974's prohibition on the release of education records without parental consent.
	BOARD OF ED. OF OKLAHOMA CITY V. DOWELL, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK [Syllabus]
	COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK V. FLORIDA PREPAIDPOSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. [Syllabus]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS, 498 U.S. 1081 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS [Syllabus] Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
	BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) [Syllabus]
	550 U. S. ____ (2007) [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	LOCKHART V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Syllabus]
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MISSOURI V. JENKINS, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SCHAFFER V. WEAST [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE, 112 S. CT. 2727, 120 L. ED. 2D 575 (1992). [Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [Syllabus]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA ET AL., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [Syllabus]
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BRENTWOOD ACADEMY V. TENNESSEE SECONDARYSCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. [Syllabus] Whether the regulatory conduct of a nominally private secondary school athletic association, which ""establishes and enforces all of the rules by which high school teams and players, at both public and private schools, compete throughout the state of Tennessee,"" Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School athletic Ass'n, 190 F.3rd 705 (6th Cir. 1999) (Merritt, J., dissenting from the denial of petition for rehearing en banc), and whose ""membership consist(s) entirely of institutions located within the same State, many of them public institutions created by the same sovereign, "" NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 193 n. 13 (1988), constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. 1983."
	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.
	ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Syllabus]
	GONZAGA UNIV. V. DOE [Syllabus] Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GRATZ V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
	WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR V. MORTIER, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) [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.
	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?
	TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 296 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HALBERT V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	PAULEY V. BETHENERGY MINES, INC., 501 U.S. 680 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Syllabus]
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	KEENEY V. TAMAYO-REYES, 504 U.S. 1 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	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?
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	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.
	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?
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS V. LEE, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). [Syllabus]
	THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIV. V. SHALALA, 512 U.S. 504 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
	JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]