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. G. W., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Nicole Ward, et al., Petitioners v. Coronado Unified School District, et al.
No. 25-1360No. 25-1366No. 25-1419
Side by side
| Fact | 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. | D. Andrew Wilson, Attorney General of Ohio v. Kenneth M. Miller | G. W., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Nicole Ward, et al., Petitioners v. Coronado Unified School District, et al. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1360 | 25-1366 | 25-1419 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 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. | Under §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? | 1. Whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause and this Court’s adequate-and-independent-state-ground doctrine, a state court may extinguish federal civil-rights claims by invoking a novel appellate forfeiture rule that relieves anti-SLAPP movants of their statutory threshold burden, then invoke law of the case to reject as frivolous a later direct attack on the derivative fee award that collaterally challenges the predicate dismissal as an excess-of-jurisdiction order. 2. Whether public-school officials may use a state anti-SLAPP statute to strike claims alleging viewpoint-discriminatory punishment of a student’s peaceful dissent from a preexisting school policy by recasting coercive enforcement as the government’s own protected speech or petitioning activity. 3. Whether due process and the First Amendment are violated when courts use judicial notice, personal knowledge, and a novel procedural bar to prevent a student and her parent from presenting evidence on Tinker’s “disruption” and “rights of others” inquiries, even though the school bears the burden of justifying suppression. |
| Summary | 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. | Ohio 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. | This case challenges a California appellate court’s decision to uphold the dismissal of claims under the state’s anti-SLAPP law and a related attorney-fee award. The petitioners argue that the court affirmed those rulings even though it said the defendants had not made the defendant-specific factual showing required to prove that the claims arose from protected activity. |
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.