Head-to-head
Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources vs. Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie Page vs. Aisha Trimble, Petitioner v. United States
Civil Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1303Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial ResourcesBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1371Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie PageBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1374Aisha Trimble, Petitioner v. United StatesBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Civil Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Civil Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources
- 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses permit the federal judiciary to require its employees to adjudicate sexual harassment and employment discrimination claims through an internal system that lacks an independent decisionmaker, meaningful procedural safeguards, and adequate remedies, rather than affording the essential protections available under Title VII. 2. Whether a circuit’s EDR Plan that does not comport with Title VII’s fundamental principles violates the Congressional Accountability Act and policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States promulgated in accordance thereto.
- Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie Page
- 1. The Supreme Court of California should not have denied the Petition for Review, and the subject Order against EZOR should be reversed. 2. The Supreme Court of California had inherent and statutory authority to order the relief requested and violated constitutional norms in not properly ruling in favor of EZOR and against ELLIE PAGE ( “ PAGE ”). 3. The Supreme Court of California denied EZOR proper and meaningful constitutional review. 4. Denying EZOR review, and a full-fledged hearing on the merits, with oral argument and a reasoned written decision, was a denial of Due Process and Equal Protection of Laws under both the California and U.S. Constitutions. 5. Denial of review violated EZOR ’ s First Amendment right of access to the courts. 6. Procedural and substantive due process was violated, and valuable Property, legal and equitable rights were abridged and lost, when the Supreme Court of California did not reverse the improper granting of summary judgment by the trial court (App.la), and the Court of Appeal ’ s affirmance of same (App.2a). There are material triable issues in the case that should have been heard by a jury. 7. EZOR was denied his primordial constitutional right to a jury trial pursuant to the 14th and 7th Amendments and appropriate remedies in law and equity. 8. The reversible improper, unlawful granting of summary judgment by the lower courts was cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 9. As there was a plethora of material triable issues, it was a denial of due process equal protection of laws and the right to a jury to grant summary judgment against EZOR and in favor of PAGE.
- Aisha Trimble, Petitioner v. United States
- 1. Whether Rule 12 dismissal lawfully bypasses entry of default or violates the Petition, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses? 2. Whether the 2007 ‘ sent to ’ amendment of Rule 4(i)(l)(A)(ii) requires “ civil process clerk ” on envelopes like the 1993 ‘ addressed to ’ amendment? 3. Whether Rule 8(b)(6) admissions satisfy the evidence scope of Rule 55(d)?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.