Citation network
Troxel Vs. Granville
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 05, 2000
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. 57 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Troxel Et Vir V. GranvilleSearch
-
fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e. g., Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children, see, e. g., Reno v. FloresSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see also Reno v. FloresSearch
-
perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
Two years later, in Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e. g., Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
Opinion of O'CONNOR, J. banks v. McCarterSearch
-
Williams v. WilliamsSearch
-
of substantive due process. Moore v. EastSearch
-
custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Ante, at 67. 3 Cf. Chicago v. MoralesSearch
-
its domestic statute and to apply a demanding standard when ruling on its facial constitutionality,5 see Chi cago v. MoralesSearch
-
a fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children resolves this case. Our decision in Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
and Immunities Clause and thus does not present an opportunity to reevaluate the meaning of that Clause. See Saenz v. RoeSearch
-
ante, at 78, n. 3 (opinion concurring in judgment) (quoting Chicago v. MoralesSearch
-
McDaniels v. CarlsonSearch
-
may 6 It necessarily follows that under the far more stringent demands suggested by the majority in United States v. SalernoSearch
-
suggestion by JUSTICE THOMAS that this case may be resolved solely with reference to our decision in Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
of these significant parental liberty interests, these interests have never been seen to be without limits. In Lehr v. RobertsonSearch
-
connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring.''' Id., at 260 (quoting Caban v. MohammedSearch
-
U. S. 380 , 397 (1979)). Conversely, in Michael H. v. GeraldSearch
-
Smith v. OrganizationSearch
-
Moore v. EastSearch
-
in a child must be balanced against the State's long-recognized interests as parens patriae, see, e. g., Reno v. FloresSearch
-
interests. Because our substantive due process case law includes a strong presumption that a parent will act Mo. v. DanforthSearch
-
Tinker v. DesSearch
-
In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 , 13 (1967) (due process rights in criminal proceedings). 9 Cf., e. g., Wisconsin v. YoderSearch
-
of the conflicting interests that give rise to disputes such as this.10 Far from guaranteeing that 10 See Palmore v. SidotiSearch
-
cf. Collins v. HarkerSearch
-
Re gents of Univ. of Mich. v. EwingSearch
-
allocating responsibility for resolving disputes of various kinds in our federal system. Ankenbrandt v. RichardsSearch
-
Syllabus Troxel Et Vir V. GranvilleSearch
-
Cf. Chicago v. MoralesSearch
-
Clause. See Saenz v. RoeSearch
-
In Lehr v. RobertsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial