question: Edwards v. Aguillard and United States v. Nixon, have which organization in common?
answer: United States Supreme Court
context: Title: Peloza v. Capistrano School District
  Passage: Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir.  1994), was a 1994 court case heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a creationist schoolteacher, John E. Peloza claimed that Establishment clause of the United States Constitution along with his own right to free speech was violated by the requirement to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism".  The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision "Edwards v. Aguillard".  One of the three appeals judges, Poole, partially dissented from the majority's free speech and due process opinions.  It was one in a long line court cases involving the teaching of creationism which have found against creationists.  Peloza appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
  Title: Criminal law in the Waite Court
  Passage: During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.  In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.  Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).
  Title: Neo-creationism
  Passage: Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community.  It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture.  This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in "Edwards v. Aguillard" that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
  Title: United States v. Nixon
  Passage: United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision which resulted in a unanimous 8–0 ruling against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver presidential tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to the District Court.  Issued on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, when there was an ongoing impeachment process against Richard Nixon.  "United States v. Nixon" is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.
  Title: United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.
  Passage: United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224 (1897), is an 1897 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States lacked standing to challenge the validity of its issued patents “on the mere ground of error of judgment” in issuing them.  The United States had standing to seek to invalidate patents, however, on grounds of fraudulent procurement and also as a defense to a charge of patent infringement.  The decision operated for many decades as a bar to government efforts to seek invalidation of patents that it considered spurious until the Supreme Court limited "Bell Telephone", first to a limited extent in "United States v. United States Gypsum Co.", and then more broadly in "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd."
  Title: Edwards v. Aguillard
  Passage: Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism.  The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.  It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction".
  Title: United States v. Binion
  Passage: United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir.  2005), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ("United States v. Booker", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and "United States v. Fanfan", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) in reviewing the sentencing decision by the trial court and upheld by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District.
  Title: Epperson v. Arkansas
  Passage: Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.  The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."  The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught.  These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard".
  Title: Criminal law in the Marshall Court
  Passage: The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year.  Among such cases are "United States v. Simms" (1803), "United States v. More" (1805), "Ex parte Bollman" (1807), "United States v. Hudson" (1812), "Cohens v. Virginia" (1821), "United States v. Perez" (1824), "Worcester v. Georgia" (1832), and "United States v. Wilson" (1833).
  Title: United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.
  Passage: United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the three prong test for the issuance of a subpoena in "United States v. Nixon" does not apply to subpoenas issued by a grand jury.  The Court concluded by stating that when a grand jury subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, the motion to quash must be denied “unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the materials sought will produce information relevant to the grand jury's investigation.”
citations: United States v. Nixon Edwards v. Aguillard