Head-to-head

Anthony Lewis v. HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital vs. Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of California vs. StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, et al., Petitioners v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

First Amendment cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.

The matchup

Docket 25-1041Anthony Lewis v. HCA Florida Lawnwood HospitalDismissedOctober Term 2025 Docket 25-1370Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of CaliforniaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025 Docket 25-1404StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, et al., Petitioners v. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyBefore argumentOctober Term 2025

Relationship

Shared issue: First Amendment
Why compared: Reviewed First Amendment tags connect these current-term public cases.

Questions presented

Anthony Lewis v. HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital: 1. Whether the district court deprived Dr. Lewis and his counsel of their statutory or procedural right to amend the First Amended Complaint without leave of court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 2. Whether the district court violated Dr. Lewis’s and his counsel’s First Amendment right to petition pursuant to the holding in NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (First Amendment) and its progeny. 3. Whether the district court violated Dr. Lewis’s and his counsel’s Thirteenth Amendment right to petition pursuant to the holding in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 22 (1883) (Thirteenth Amendment; Civil Rights Act of 1866) and its progeny.
Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of California: 1. Did the Supreme court of California in error, abuse discretion and show bias denying Petition (S293171) on Dec 10 25 and left unresolved conflicted issue of law and factual issue? (including violation of 7th, 5th, 1st, 4th, 14th amendment amendments) ? (Opinion attached as Exhibit A) . 2. Did the Fifth District Court of Appeal err in Case No. F088523 (Sept. 25, 2025) by failing to apply the mandatory independent-judgment standard of review required when a fundamental vested right is at stake, and instead affirming on a deferential and incomplete record while disregarding material facts and deferring to agency and Attorney General arguments rather than independently evaluating the administrative record and the Tulare Superior Court rulings? (Exhibit B)? 3. Did the Tulare County Superior Court err or abuse its discretion on August 20, 2024, by denying Petitioner Samreen Riaz ’ s petition for writ of mandate in the case vcu303441? (Exhibit G)? 4. Did the Dental Board/DCA err or abuse its discretion by denying the August 16, 2023 reconsideration petition on August 21, 2023, and did revocation of petitioner ’ s professional license constitute a compensable taking under doctrine of eminent domain the 5th and 14th Amendments (Boom Co. v. Patterson, 1879) (Exhibit D)? 5. Did the Dental Board of California err and abuse its discretion by issuing a mental and physical examination order under Business and Professions Code §820 on June 24, 2022- the same day the petition was filed, Without prior service of the petition to ophthalmology patient prior to obtaining the order(Exhibit E )? ”? 6. Did the DBCA violate petitioner ’ s constitutional and patient rights by initiating a petition mental exam without serving the petition, for a reason that an ophthalmology patient for exercising First Amendment rights?
StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, et al., Petitioners v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 1. Whether the harassers’ subjective discriminatory intent is an element of a hostile environment claim under Title VI. 2. Whether the First Amendment bars a plaintiff from pleading a Title VI hostile environment claim based on “protected speech.”?

Go deeper

First Amendment cases

Sources

Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.