Cases compared
Julian Francis Bates, Petitioner v. General Motors, LLC, dba GM vs. Naquea Elaine Johnson, Petitioner v. New Jersey, et al. vs. Edward L. Clark, Jr. v. Deborah L. Clark
No. 25-6605No. 25-6617No. 25-7180
Side by side
| Fact | Julian Francis Bates, Petitioner v. General Motors, LLC, dba GM | Naquea Elaine Johnson, Petitioner v. New Jersey, et al. | Edward L. Clark, Jr. v. Deborah L. Clark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-6605 | 25-6617 | 25-7180 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Can a party fail to cooperate in discovery, disobey court rules, interrupt the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting evidence approach and then be granted summary judgement? 2. Was a General Motors ’ women ’ s only employee resource group an unlawful D.E.I. initiative, policy, program, or practice that involved General Motors taking a negative employment action motivated by Julian Bates ’ gender or sex as a man? | 1. Whether federal courts violate due process and equal protection by denying in forma pauperis status based on gross income that includes mandatory payments under jurisdictionally void orders, when the IFP denial forecloses the § 1983 action seeking to challenge state actors ’ unauthorized exercise of power and prevents access to discovery documenting the jurisdictional violations. 2. Whether M.L.B. v. S.L.J. ‘ s prohibition on wealth barriers to fundamental rights adjudication extends to § 1983 claims challenging state actors ’ deprivation of parental rights through jurisdictionally void orders issued without subject-matter jurisdiction and without constitutionally mandated procedural safeguards. 3. Whether state actors violate § 1983 when they exercise authority over an interstate child removal after an appellate court orders a mandatory jurisdictional hearing that never occurs, issue orders without subject-matter jurisdiction, and deprive a parent of fundamental liberty interests without due process, creating a federal question that is not barred by Rooker-Feldman or the domestic-relations exception. | 1. Does a person representing themselves as a prose litigant automatically forfeit his Fourteenth amendment rights to fair and equal protection under the law in a court with Subject Matter Jurisdiction? 2. Is Subject Matter Jurisdiction still the foundational pre-requisite for any judicial process to be legal, valid and enforceable in the United States? 3. Can a Family Court fabricate and take back subject matter jurisdiction ONCE forfeited, (failing to reserve jurisdiction in judgment before being dismissed) in a dissolution money judgment and after refusing to merge private settlement contracts into the family court judgment for a final accord? 4. Can a family court judge fabricate a new judgment with a different judgment date (11-years later) using a case number no longer at issue over two years prior with a fully executed private settlement contract dated 3/21/2016? 5. Does the “ The Law Of The Land Doctrine ” allow an appellate court to supersede the long standing precedence of Subject matter jurisdiction, basically allowing an appellate court to validate void orders by adopting an order it issued on the merits of a void order?. 6. Is it standard judicial conduct to issue a pre-filing order as a shield from legal liability to introduce extrinsic fraud to enforce VOID orders under the law, that were issued without subject matter jurisdiction and by a person who is not a judge? |
| Summary | Julian Francis Bates has asked the Supreme Court to review lower-court rulings in his employment-discrimination case against General Motors, including claims concerning a women-only employee resource group and the handling of discovery and summary judgment. The Court has not yet agreed to decide any question in the case. | Naquea Elaine Johnson has asked the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit case involving her request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying court fees because of limited financial resources. Her petition argues that courts violated due process and equal protection by calculating her income using gross income that includes mandatory payments; the Court has not yet agreed to decide the case. | Edward L. Clark, Jr. asked the Supreme Court to review a California Court of Appeal case involving Deborah L. Clark. His petition argues that a person representing themselves should not lose Fourteenth Amendment rights to fair treatment and equal protection; the Court has not yet agreed to hear the case. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Civil Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Civil Rights 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.