Head-to-head
City of Bossier City, Louisiana, Petitioner v. Richard Hershey, et al. vs. Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie Page vs. Sarah Holmstrom, et al., Petitioners v. Rouda Feder Tietjen & McGuinn
First Amendment cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1323City of Bossier City, Louisiana, Petitioner v. Richard Hershey, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1371Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie PageBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1396Sarah Holmstrom, et al., Petitioners v. Rouda Feder Tietjen & McGuinnBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- First Amendment
- Why compared
- Reviewed First Amendment tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- City of Bossier City, Louisiana, Petitioner v. Richard Hershey, et al.
- Whether petitioner Bossier City can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for its egregious failure to train its law enforcement officers on the First Amendment, which predictably resulted in the violation of respondent Richard Hershey’s clearly established First Amendment right to peacefully distribute religious leaflets on a public sidewalk in a public park.
- 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.
- Sarah Holmstrom, et al., Petitioners v. Rouda Feder Tietjen & McGuinn
- 1. Whether a court’s exercise of discretion must be accompanied by a sufficiently reasoned explanation to permit meaningful appellate review? 2. Whether the exercise of judicial discretion without an adequate statement of reasons violates the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.