Skip to main content

Cases compared

Cade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V. vs. D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. Miller vs. Donald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al.

No. 25-1360No. 25-1366No. 25-6484

Side by side

Cade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V. vs. D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. Miller vs. Donald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al., compared fact by fact
FactCade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V.D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. MillerDonald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al.
DocketCade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V.25-1360D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. Miller25-1366Donald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al.25-6484
StatusCade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V.Before ArgumentsD. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. MillerBefore ArgumentsDonald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al.Before Arguments
DateCade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V.October Term 2025 (2025–2026)D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. MillerOctober Term 2025 (2025–2026)Donald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al.October Term 2025 (2025–2026)
Question presentedCade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V.1. Whether respondents’ challenge to H.B. 71 is non-justiciable. 2. Whether H.B. 71 is facially unconstitutional under either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. MillerUnder §2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, may a State restrict out-of-state retailers from directly shipping alcohol to in-state consumers and may it cap the amount of alcohol that individuals may personally transport into the State?Donald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al.1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excludes equity from jurisdiction over deprivations of liberty, including parental liberty? 2. Whether a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a pro se, fee-paid § 1983 action, without notice or leave to amend to add proper state officials under Ex parte Young or to present the federal constitutional questions, violates due process, burdens the First Amendment right to petition, and impairs this Court’s appellate jurisdiction?
SummaryCade Brumley, Superintendent, Louisiana State Education v. Darcy Roake, Reverend, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Real Parties in Interest A. V. and S. V.Louisiana education officials ask the Supreme Court to review a challenge to H.B. 71, a state law that has been challenged under the First Amendment’s religion clauses. The case concerns whether the challengers may bring the case in federal court and whether the law is unconstitutional on its face under the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause.D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. MillerOhio asks the Supreme Court to uphold parts of its three-tier alcohol system that bar out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to Ohio consumers and limit how much alcohol residents may personally bring into the state. The case concerns whether those rules are permitted by the Twenty-first Amendment despite constitutional limits on state laws that burden interstate commerce.Donald N. S. Mortvedt, Petitioner v. Charles E. Clawson, III, et al.Donald N. S. Mortvedt has asked the Supreme Court to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. His petition appears to raise a Fourteenth Amendment due process argument concerning equity, but the Court has not yet agreed to decide any question.

Relationship

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

Related

Sources

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