Cases compared
Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Petitioner v. Dexter Johnson vs. National Small Business United, dba National Small Business Association, et al., Petitioners v. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. vs. Michael Mendenhall, Petitioner v. City and County of Denver, Colorado
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1003No. 25-1201No. 25-1205
Side by side
| Fact | Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Petitioner v. Dexter Johnson | National Small Business United, dba National Small Business Association, et al., Petitioners v. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. | Michael Mendenhall, Petitioner v. City and County of Denver, Colorado |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1003 | 25-1201 | 25-1205 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | Argued Nov 4, 2026 | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | Whether a claim relies on a "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable" when the habeas petitioner could have asserted a claim based on the rule in a prior federal habeas petition? | 1. Whether the reporting requirements exceed Congress’s enumerated powers on their face. 2. Whether the reporting requirements violate the Fourth Amendment on their face. | Should this Court overrule Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960) and hold that the Fourth Amendment prohibits courts from issuing warrants based on hearsay? |
| Summary | The Court will decide when a state prisoner may file a second federal habeas petition based on a new constitutional rule that the Supreme Court has made retroactive. Texas argues that Dexter Johnson cannot use that exception because he could have raised the claim in an earlier petition, even though it would not have succeeded then. | This case challenges the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires many state-created companies to report information about their beneficial owners to the federal government. The petitioners argue that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power by imposing the reporting requirement on companies based solely on their existence under state law; the Eleventh Circuit upheld the law. | Michael Mendenhall asks the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1960 decision in Jones v. United States, which allows warrants to be based on hearsay. He argues that the Fourth Amendment instead requires a witness with firsthand knowledge of the facts to swear an oath before a judge may issue a warrant. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure 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.