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. StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, et al., Petitioners v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
First Amendment cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1360No. 25-1366No. 25-1404
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 | StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, et al., Petitioners v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1360 | 25-1366 | 25-1404 |
| 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 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.”? |
| 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. | The petitioners allege that MIT violated Title VI by failing to respond adequately to an antisemitic hostile environment on campus, including protests and conduct they say targeted Jewish students and spaces. The First Circuit upheld dismissal of the case, and the petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify the standards for a Title VI hostile-environment claim and the role of First Amendment-protected speech. |
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.