Cases compared
Grand v. City of University Heights vs. Perez v. City of San Antonio vs. Perry v. Stacy Marteney
No. 25-965No. 26-15No. 26-319
Side by side
| Fact | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al. | Gary Perez v. City of San Antonio, Texas | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual School |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.25-965 | Gary Perez v. City of San Antonio, Texas26-15 | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual School26-319 |
| Status | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Before Arguments | Gary Perez v. City of San Antonio, TexasBefore Arguments | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual SchoolBefore Arguments |
| Date | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Argued Dec 9, 2026 | Gary Perez v. City of San Antonio, TexasOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual SchoolOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) |
| Question presented | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Whether the First Amendment's established chilling-effect doctrine-under which a credible government threat that deters the exercise of fundamental rights constitutes a complete and independently actionable constitutional injury-is displaced by Williamson Cnty .'s land-use finality requirement when a plaintiff alleges that government threats both before and after a Planning Commission meeting chilled religious exercise, worship, and assembly. | Gary Perez v. City of San Antonio, Texas1. Whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment permit courts, when deciding whether government action burdens religious exercise, to override a claimant’s sincere theological judgment of what the religious exercise requires. 2. Whether the government can satisfy its burden to prove that its action is the least religiously restrictive means available when, after notice that its action would burden religious exercise, the government admits that it failed to consider any workable alternatives prior to litigation. | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual School1. Whether a law that exempts people based on secular criteria but not religious reasons is subject to strict scrutiny and violates the First Amendment even when the religious burden is implicated by an act—like attending school or working—that is not itself religiously motivated. 2. Whether a law is subject to strict scrutiny under Mahmoud when it imposes a non-curricular requirement that substantially burdens parents’ rights to guide the religious development of their child. |
| Summary | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Daniel Grand alleges that University Heights officials’ threats concerning his proposed religious gatherings at his home deterred worship and assembly protected by the First Amendment. The case concerns whether he may pursue that claim even though the city had not made a final land-use decision about the gatherings. | Gary Perez v. City of San Antonio, TexasGary Perez and Matilde Torres, ceremonial leaders of the Lipan Native American Church, say San Antonio’s plan to cut trees and drive away nesting cormorants at a river bend in a public park would damage ceremonies they hold there. They ask the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that the plan would not seriously interfere with their religious practice. | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual SchoolThe Perrys say officials disenrolled their daughter from West Virginia’s virtual public school because she was not fully vaccinated and denied their request for a religious exemption, while exempting some homeschooled and small-group students. The Fourth Circuit rejected their First Amendment claim, and the Perrys have asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling. |
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.