Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query children returned 65 results.

	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Syllabus]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion]
	ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Syllabus]
	M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES [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.
	WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER [Syllabus] Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
	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.
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Syllabus] 1. Does Revised Code of Washington 26.10.160(3) and the former RCW26.09.240 granting third parties, including grandparents, the right to petition for visitation rights with a minor child if the visitation is ""in the best interests of the child"" impermissibly interfere with a parent's fundamental interest in the ""care custody and companionship of a child"" as defined by the liberty and privacy provisions of the United States Constitution? 2. Did the Supreme Court of Washington err in Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), in holding that RCW 26. 10. 160(3) and the former RCW 26.09.240 are unconstitutional based upon the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment and the fundamental right to privacy inherent in the United States Constitution when it used the flawed premise that a parent's fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions is unassailable and that the state's parents patriae power to act in a child's welfare may not be invoked absent a finding of harm to the child or parental unfitness?
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [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."
	UNITED STATES V. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENTGROUP, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post- judgment motions under Rule 59 (e) and 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motion were pending.
	CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F. [Syllabus]
	ANDERSON V. EDWARDS, 514 U.S. 143 (1995). [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.
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	OVERTON V. BAZZETTA [Syllabus] In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
	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.
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Syllabus]
	STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997). [Syllabus]
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	SCHAFFER V. WEAST [Syllabus]
	VERNONIA SCH. DIST. 47J V. ACTON, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BECKER V. MONTGOMERY [Syllabus] When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	NORDLINGER V. HAHN, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF ED. V.MURPHY [Syllabus]
	FREW V. HAWKINS [Syllabus] This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
	DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., 499 US.187 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	SUTER V. ARTIST M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	FLORENCE COUNTY SCH. DIST. FOUR V. CARTER, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	SULLIVAN V. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) [Syllabus]
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC. [Syllabus] What must be shown to establish that a product's design is inherently distinctive for purposes of Lanham Act trade-dress protection?"
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	RENO V. FLORES, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. X-CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., 115 S. CT. 464, 130 L. ED. 2D 372 [Syllabus]
	FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. [Syllabus] Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
	JACOBSON V. UNITED STATES, 503 U.S. 540 (1992). [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) [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.
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] The Child Online Protection Act's reliance on "community standards" to identify what World Wide Web material "is harmful to minors" does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes.
	[Syllabus]
	BOARD OF ED. OF OKLAHOMA CITY V. DOWELL, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
	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.
	CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. IRVINE, 511 U.S. 224 (1994). [Syllabus]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS, 498 U.S. 1081 (1992). [Syllabus]