Skip to main content

Head-to-head

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Mosaic Health, Inc. vs. Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Citibank NA London, et al. vs. Arron Benedetti v. Marin County, California

Business and Regulation cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.

The matchup

Docket 25-1070AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Mosaic Health, Inc.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1089Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Citibank NA London, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1241Arron Benedetti v. Marin County, CaliforniaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025

Relationship

Shared issue
Business and Regulation
Why compared
Reviewed Business and Regulation tags connect these current-term public cases.

Questions presented

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Mosaic Health, Inc.
1. Whether Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), which bars antitrust claims by indirect purchasers and sellers, applies to a claim of “lost profit” damages based on indirect purchases or sales that were not made due to the alleged conspiracy? 2. Whether the allegation that businesses had an “opportunity to conspire,” such as through joint lobbying and participation in a trade association, plausibly suggests an antitrust conspiracy?
Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Citibank NA London, et al.
1. Whether applying 11 U.S.C. 561(d), which instructs that provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to securities contracts apply in a Chapter 15 cross-border insolvency case as in a domestic bankruptcy in an American court is consistent with the presumption against extraterritoriality? 2. Whether the safe harbor for securities-related transfers under 11 U.S.C. 546(e), when applied through Section 561(d), bars foreign common-law claims seeking to undo securities-related transfers?
Arron Benedetti v. Marin County, California
1. Whether Marin County may, under its power to promote the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, compel private landowners to enter and permanently remain in a government-chosen occupation as a condition of a residential development permit? 2. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — which protects the fundamental right to “engage in any of the common occupations of life,” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) — also encompasses the fundamental right not to be forced into an occupation of the government’s choosing?

Go deeper

Sources

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