InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio, et al. v. Doris Simmons-Harris et al.

The Court upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers.

536 U.S. 639 · No. 00-1751 · 2001 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 27, 2002 · argued Feb 20, 2002

First Amendment · Parochiaid: government aid to religious schools, or religious requirements in public schools

Landmark · Freedom of religion

Majority opinion: William Rehnquist

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed. Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.

Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as long as parents using the program were allowed to choose among a range of secular and religious schools.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2001 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgSouterBreyerO'ConnorKennedyRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio, et al.Specified state board or department of education (Ohio)
Respondent
Doris Simmons-Harris et al.State or local governmental taxpayer, or executor of the estate (Ohio)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
First Amendment (establishment of religion)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 27, 2002DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Ohio, et al. won.
  2. Feb 20, 2002ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Ohio Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

31 other argued cases since 1946 on parochiaid: government aid to religious schools, or religious requirements in public schools, newest first.

  1. Carson v. MakinLandmark · Freedom of religion142 S. Ct. 1987Jun 21, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1987First Amendment6–36–3 band

  2. Espinoza v. Montana Department of RevenueLandmark · Freedom of religion140 S. Ct. 2246Jun 30, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2246First Amendment5–45–4 band

  3. Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources137 S. Ct. 2012Jun 26, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 2012First Amendment7–27–2 band

  4. Gary Locke, Governor of Washington, et al. v. Joshua Davey540 U.S. 712Feb 25, 2004 · 540 U.S. 712First Amendment7–27–2 band

  5. Guy Mitchell, et al. v. Mary L. Helms, et al.530 U.S. 793Jun 28, 2000 · 530 U.S. 793First Amendment6–36–3 band

  6. Rachel Agostini, et al. v. Betty-Louise Felton et al.Landmark · Freedom of religion521 U.S. 203Jun 23, 1997 · 521 U.S. 203First Amendment5–45–4 band

  7. Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Louis Grumet et al.512 U.S. 687Jun 27, 1994 · 512 U.S. 687First Amendment6–36–3 band
  8. Larry Zobrest, et ux., et al. v. Catalina Foothills School District509 U.S. 1Jun 18, 1993 · 509 U.S. 1First Amendment5–45–4 band

  9. Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools, etc., et al. v. Bridget C. Mergens, by and Through Her Next Friend, Daniel N. Mergens, et al.496 U.S. 226Jun 4, 1990 · 496 U.S. 226First Amendment8–18–1 band
  10. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Aguillard et al.Landmark · Freedom of religion482 U.S. 578Jun 19, 1987 · 482 U.S. 578First Amendment7–27–2 band

  11. Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind474 U.S. 481Jan 27, 1986 · 474 U.S. 481First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  12. Aguilar et al. v. Felton et al.473 U.S. 402Jul 1, 1985 · 473 U.S. 402First Amendment5–45–4 band

  13. School District of the City of Grand Rapids et al. v. Ball et al.473 U.S. 373Jul 1, 1985 · 473 U.S. 373First Amendment5–45–4 band
  14. Wallace, Governor of Alabama, et al. v. Jaffree et al.472 U.S. 38Jun 4, 1985 · 472 U.S. 38First Amendment6–36–3 band
  15. Mueller et al. v. Allen et al.463 U.S. 388Jun 29, 1983 · 463 U.S. 388First Amendment5–45–4 band

  16. Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty et al. v. Regan, Comptroller of New York, et al.444 U.S. 646Feb 20, 1980 · 444 U.S. 646First Amendment5–45–4 band
  17. New York v. Cathedral Academy434 U.S. 125Dec 6, 1977 · 434 U.S. 125First Amendment6–36–3 band
  18. Wolman et al. v. Walter et al.433 U.S. 229Jun 24, 1977 · 433 U.S. 229First Amendment7–27–2 band
  19. Roemer et al. v. Board of Public Works of Maryland et al.426 U.S. 736Jun 21, 1976 · 426 U.S. 736First Amendment5–45–4 band
  20. Meek et al. v. Pittenger, Secretary of Education, et al.421 U.S. 349May 19, 1975 · 421 U.S. 349First Amendment6–36–3 band
  21. Wheeler et al. v. Barrera et al.417 U.S. 402Jun 10, 1974 · 417 U.S. 402First Amendment8–18–1 band
  22. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al. v. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al.413 U.S. 756Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 756First Amendment6–36–3 band

  23. Sloan, Treasurer of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Lemon et al.413 U.S. 825Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 825First Amendment6–36–3 band
  24. Hunt v. McNair, Governor of South Carolina, et al.413 U.S. 734Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 734First Amendment6–36–3 band
  25. Levitt, Comptroller of New York, et al. v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al.413 U.S. 472Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 472First Amendment8–18–1 band
  26. Lemon et al. v. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.411 U.S. 192Apr 2, 1973 · 411 U.S. 192First Amendment5–36–3 band

  27. Tilton et al. v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.403 U.S. 672Jun 28, 1971 · 403 U.S. 672First Amendment5–45–4 band

  28. Lemon et al. v. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.Landmark · Freedom of religion403 U.S. 602Jun 28, 1971 · 403 U.S. 602First Amendment8–0Unanimous band

  29. Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 et al. v. Allen, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al.392 U.S. 236Jun 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 236First Amendment6–36–3 band
  30. Zorach et al. v. Clauson et al., Constituting the Board of Education of the City of New York, et al.343 U.S. 306Apr 28, 1952 · 343 U.S. 306First Amendment6–36–3 band

  31. Illinois ex rel. McCOLLUM v. Board of Education of School District No. 71, Champaign County, Illinois, et al.Landmark · Freedom of religion333 U.S. 203Mar 8, 1948 · 333 U.S. 203First Amendment8–18–1 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.