Ginsberg v. New York’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
530 federal appellate · 127 district · 749 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,162 later decisions (180 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), North Carolina v. Pearce (1969)
530 federal appellate · 127 district · 749 state decisions — followed in 44 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1461
Relies on Gault · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Roth v. United States · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same
Cited together with Miller v. California · Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Roth v. United States · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2,162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society.”
62 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) predominantly appeal[ed] to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors, and (ii) [wa]s patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and (iii) [wa]s utterly without redeeming social importance for minors.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]t least in some precisely delineated areas, a child—like someone in a captive audience—is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees. It is only upon such a premise, I should suppose, that a State may deprive children of other rights the right to marry, for example, or the right to vote—deprivations that would be constitutionally intolerable for adults.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.