International Primate Protection League and Its Members v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund
500 U.S. 72 · Decided May 20, 1991 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
International Primate Protection League and Its Members v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund was decided on May 20, 1991 unanimously (8–0). The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Standing, adversary parties” in the Judicial Power area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 500 U.S. 72 · 111 S. Ct. 1700 · 114 L. Ed. 2d 134 · 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2781
- Docket number
- 90-89
- Decided
- May 20, 1991
- Argued
- March 20, 1991
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Thurgood Marshall
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Standing, adversary parties
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Legal provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Majority |
Did not participate: Antonin Scalia.
Full case caption
International Primate Protection League and Its Members, et al. v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1990-070, docket 1990-070-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Standing, adversary parties”
Cases on the same legal provision: Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- County of Riverside and Cois Byrd v. McLaughlin
- Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Louise Renne v. Bob Geary
- United States v. Montalvo-Murillo
- Manuel Lujan, Jr. v. Defenders of Wildlife
- Whitmore v. Arkansas
Same Term, same area (Judicial Power)
- Billy J. Temple v. Synthes Corporation, Ltd.
- Shirley W. Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Companies
- Firstier Mortgage Company v. Investors Mortgage Insurance Company
- Ohio v. Ediberto Huertas
- James A. Ford v. Georgia
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error