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. Texas Top Cop Shop, Incorporated v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1003No. 25-1201No. 25-1290
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. | Texas Top Cop Shop, Incorporated v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1003 | 25-1201 | 25-1290 |
| 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. | 1. Whether the Act’s regulation of corporations merely because they exist under state law exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. 2. Whether the Act’s suspicionless and warrantless searches to further a generalized interest in expedient law enforcement violate the Fourth Amendment. |
| 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. | This case challenges the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires many corporations to report identifying information about their beneficial owners to the federal government. The petitioners argue that Congress lacked constitutional authority to impose the reporting requirement and that the required disclosure is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. |
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.