Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Zelman Vs. Simmons-harris

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 27, 2002

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

70 entries 7 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Lynch Vs. Donnelly US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1984
  2. Agostini Vs. Felton US Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1997
  3. Plessy Vs. Ferguson US Supreme Court · May 18, 1896
  4. Beauharnais Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1952
  5. Widmar Vs. Vincent US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1981
  6. Aguilar Vs. Felton US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1985
  7. Troxel Vs. Granville US Supreme Court · Jun 05, 2000
  8. U.S. 639 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio, Et Al. V. Simmons-Harris
    Search
  9. Together with No. 00-1777, Hanna Perkins School et al. v. SimmonsHarris
    Search
  10. et al., and No. 00-1779, Taylor et al. v. Simmons-Harris
    Search
  11. question is whether the program nonetheless has the forbidden effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. See Agostini v. Felton
    Search
  12. religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice. See, e. g., Mueller v. Allen
    Search
  13. at a religious school. Finally, contrary to respondents' argument, Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
    Search
  14. and placed the entire Cleveland school district under state control. See Reed v. Rhodes
    Search
  15. that the enactment of the program violated certain procedural requirements of the Ohio Constitution. Simmons-Harris v. Goff
    Search
  16. of advancing or inhibiting religion. Agostini v. Felton
    Search
  17. drawn a consistent distinction between government programs that provide aid directly to religious schools, Mitchell v. Helms
    Search
  18. Rosenberger v. Rector
    Search
  19. aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals, Mueller v. Allen
    Search
  20. Witters v. Washington
    Search
  21. Zobrest v. Catalina
    Search
  22. id., at 399 (citing Widmar v. Vincent
    Search
  23. of beneficiaries or providers of services, the touchstone of neutrality under the Establishment Clause. Mitchell v. Helms
    Search
  24. underlying a challenged program. Good News Club v. Milford
    Search
  25. U. S. 98 , 119 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette
    Search
  26. decisions made in any given year by thousands of individual aid recipients, infra, at 659 (citing Mueller v. Allen
    Search
  27. for 2001-2002). Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Milwaukee program constitutional in 1998, Jackson v. Benson
    Search
  28. Brief for Wisconsin 12-13. These numbers further demonstrate the wisdom of our refusal in Mueller v. Allen
    Search
  29. Respondents finally claim that we should look to Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
    Search
  30. that some speculative potential for divisiveness bears on the constitutionality of educational aid programs. Mitchell v. Helms
    Search
  31. quoting Aguilar v. Felton
    Search
  32. Supp. 2001). Most of these tax policies are well established, see, e. g., Mueller v. Allen
    Search
  33. Walz v. Tax
    Search
  34. Regan v. Taxation
    Search
  35. see also Rosenberger v. Rector
    Search
  36. well-established parts of our social welfare system, see, e. g., Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
    Search
  37. Lemon v. Kurtz
    Search
  38. man, 403 U. S. 602 , 612-613 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Agostini v. Felton
    Search
  39. of entangle- 669 ment has implications for whether a statute advances or inhibits religion, see Lynch v. Donnelly
    Search
  40. O'CONNOR, J., concurring). The test today is basically the same as that set forth in School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp
    Search
  41. U. S. 203 , 222 (1963) (citing Everson v. Board
    Search
  42. rather than directly to service providers, has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  43. see also Wallace v. Jaffree
    Search
  44. schools deny emancipation to urban minority students. Despite this Court's observation nearly 50 years ago in Brown v. Board
    Search
  45. try to navigate the line between the secular and the religious in education. See generally Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board
    Search
  46. recently decided several cases challenging federal aid programs that include religious schools. See, e. g., Mitchell v. Helms
    Search
  47. on a neu- 2 See, e. g., School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp
    Search
  48. Roth v. United
    Search
  49. States, 354 U. S. 476, 503-504 (1957) (dissenting opinion). See also Gitlow v. New
    Search
  50. Pierce v. Society
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial