Citation network
Board of Educ. Vs. Mergens
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 04, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 226 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Board of Educ. v. MergensSearch
-
U.S. 226 (1990) Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. MergensSearch
-
Access Act does not, on its face and as applied to Westside, contravene the Establishment Clause. The logic of Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
U. S. 263 , 454 U. S. 271 -275 -- which applied the three-part test of Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
such a degree that it in fact establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. County of Allegheny v. AmericanSearch
-
a religious club under the Act's criteria do not lead to the establishment of religion under this standard. See Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
shown in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools, see, e.g., Edwards v. AguillardSearch
-
policy. Pp. 496 U. S. 263 -264. (b) The plurality misplaces its reliance on Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
respondents' constitutional claims, reasoning that Westside did not have a limited public forum as set forth in Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
s denial of respondents' request was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, see Hazelwood School Dist. v. KuhlmeierSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
contention that the Act violated the Establishment Clause. Noting that the Act extended the decision in Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
Clause. Ibid. We granted certiorari, 492 U.S. 917 (1989), and now affirm. II A In Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
policy would not violate the Establishment Clause under our decision in Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
therefore one of statutory interpretation. We begin, of course, with the language of the statute. See, e.g., Mallard v. U.SSearch
-
United States v. JamesSearch
-
Cf. Hazelwood School Dist. v. KuhlmeierSearch
-
noninstructional time. See H.R. Rep. No. 98-710, supra, at 3-6 (discussing Lubbock Civil Liberties Union v. LubbockSearch
-
School Dist., 669 F.2d 1038, 1042-1048 (CA5 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1155-1156 (1983), and Brandon v. GuilderlandSearch
-
the type of officially recognized activities in which their students participate. See, e.g., Hazelwood School Dist. v. KuhlmeierSearch
-
Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. FraserSearch
-
Pavelic & LeFlore v. MarvelSearch
-
Tinker v. DesSearch
-
as used by the Court, is a term of art, see, e.g., Perry Ed. Assn. v. PerrySearch
-
F.2d 1076, 1078 (CA8 1989). See also Garnett v. RentonSearch
-
as religious speech is a sufficient basis for meeting the secular purpose prong of the Lemon test. See Edwards v. AguillardSearch
-
of speech -- is undeniably secular. See Corporation of Presiding Bishop, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. AmosSearch
-
Public Education and Religious Liberty v. NyquistSearch
-
U. S. 38 , 472 U. S. 56 (1985) (quoting Lynch v. DonnellySearch
-
a secondary school student will perceive official school support for such religious meetings. See County of Allegheny v. ACLUSearch
-
quoting Wallace v. JaffreeSearch
-
Grand Rapids School Dist. v. BallSearch
-
a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis. Cf. Tinker v. DesSearch
-
West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. BarnetteSearch
-
Bender v. WilliamsportSearch
-
Walters v. NationalSearch
-
Rostker v. GoldbergSearch
-
McCollum v. BoardSearch
-
in the day-to-day surveillance or administration of religious activities. See Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. SecretarySearch
-
Westside school officials are a far cry from the groups given official recognition by university officials in Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
County of Allegheny v. AmericanSearch
-
U. S. 659 (1989) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Lynch v. DonnellySearch
-
s construction is faithful to our commitment to nondiscriminatory access to open fora in public schools. Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
of controversy as necessary to the functioning of our constitutional system. See, e.g., Police Dept. of Chicago v. MosleySearch
-
Constitution requires toleration of speech over its suppression is no less true in our Nation's schools. See Tinker v. DesSearch
-
Keyishian v. BoardSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial