Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query religion and free or establishment returned 36 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]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Concurrence]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concurrence]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Opinion]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion]
	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]
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Opinion]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Dissent]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Opinion]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Dissent]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Opinion]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Dissent]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Opinion]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Opinion]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Syllabus]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	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.
	MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence]
	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]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN []
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Concurrence]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence]
	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 [Concurrence]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Opinion]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Syllabus]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concurrence]
	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.
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Dissent]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Opinion]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Opinion]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [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."
	[Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Syllabus]
	LEE V. WEISMAN [Syllabus]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Syllabus]
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Syllabus]
	LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Syllabus]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Concurrence]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Opinion]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [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.
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Syllabus]
	VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus]
	MCDANIEL V. PATY [Syllabus]
	MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Opinion]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Opinion]
	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?
	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.
	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?
	DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Opinion]
	SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Concurrence]
	SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM [Opinion]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Syllabus]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Dissent]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Opinion]
	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Opinion]
	MUELLER V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent]
	RENO V. ACLU [Concurrence]
	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?
	HIBBS V. WINN [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.
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER [Opinion]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Opinion]
	WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Opinion]
	VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Opinion]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Opinion]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence]
	MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Syllabus]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Dissent]
	WIENER V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Dissent]
	EVANS V. ABNEY [Opinion]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion]
	CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE [Dissent]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK []
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Concurrence]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Syllabus]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	WILSON V. NEW [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion]
	PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON [Opinion]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PETERS [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Syllabus]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Concurrence]
	WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Syllabus]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Concurrence]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Dissent]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Dissent]
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Opinion]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Syllabus]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence]
	ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Dissent]
	ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion]
	STONE V. GRAHAM [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. GATES [Syllabus]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Syllabus]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Concurrence]
	MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent]
	EX PARTE GARLAND [Dissent]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent]
	YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus]
	WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Concurrence]
	EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion]
	EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Syllabus]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Syllabus]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Concurrence]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Opinion]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence]
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 503 U.S. 569 (1992). [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.
	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?"
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	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.
	GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP. V. SHALALA, 508 U.S. 402 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [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?
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Opinion]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion]
	PRIZE CASES [Opinion]
	MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent]
	WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Dissent]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent]
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent]
	SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent]
	GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion]
	CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent]
	PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Syllabus]
	MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion]
	CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Syllabus]
	MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Dissent]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Concurrence]
	DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK []
	SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Syllabus]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Opinion]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent]
	MULLER V. OREGON [Opinion]
	YATES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	BOOS V. BARRY [Concurrence]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Opinion]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	REID V. COVERT [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Dissent]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Syllabus]
	REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Opinion]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Dissent]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	TWINING V. STATE [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. []
	AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Opinion]
	MARSH V. ALABAMA [Dissent]
	MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Dissent]
	BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Dissent]
	MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE [Opinion]
	PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent]
	JACOBELLIS V. OHIO [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. KAHN [Opinion]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JACKSON [Opinion]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Dissent]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Concurrence]
	NGUYEN V. INS [Opinion]
	KENT V. DULLES [Dissent]
	WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent]
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Opinion]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence]
	CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Concurrence]
	SHELLEY V. KRAEMER [Opinion]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Syllabus]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. KLEIN [Opinion]
	OLIVER V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent]
	PALKO V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion]
	METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Opinion]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Dissent]
	WALLER V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Syllabus]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent]
	TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Opinion]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Opinion]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	MULFORD V. SMITH [Opinion]
	REID V. COVERT [Dissent]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion]
	GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BELMONT [Opinion]
	EVANS V. NEWTON [Opinion]
	CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion]
	FLETCHER V. PECK [Syllabus]
	ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY [Concurrence]
	BARRON V. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE [Syllabus]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion]
	HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion]
	KIRKPATRICK V. PREISLER [Syllabus]
	GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MAXWELL V. DOW [Dissent]
	WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO. [Opinion]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Syllabus]
	BERGER V. NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Dissent]
	UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Dissent]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Dissent]
	ENGEL V. VITALE [Syllabus]
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion]
	MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Opinion]
	TROP V. DULLES [Concurrence]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion]
	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Syllabus]
	GREER V. SPOCK [Opinion]
	CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Opinion]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence]
	KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Dissent]
	WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	THORNHILL V. ALABAMA [Opinion]
	HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Dissent]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Dissent]
	SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM [Syllabus]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Syllabus]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion]
	HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY [Dissent]
	TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence]
	MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Opinion]
	ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Syllabus]
	WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Syllabus]
	TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. [Dissent]
	SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Dissent]
	MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent]
	BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Opinion]
	MAHER V. ROE [Opinion]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MAHAN V. HOWELL [Syllabus]
	IN RE NEAGLE [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence]
	BURCH V. LOUISIANA [Opinion]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus]
	ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [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]
	LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [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]
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HIBBS V. WINN [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?
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [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."
	[Syllabus]
	VAN ORDEN V. PERRY [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [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.
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	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]
	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.
	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.
	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?"
	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.
	UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 503 U.S. 569 (1992). [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?
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP. V. SHALALA, 508 U.S. 402 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. V. SCHMIDT [Syllabus]
	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.
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). [Syllabus]