Cases compared
Hastings College Conservation Committee, et al., Petitioners v. California, et al. vs. ON24, Inc. v. Leadersel Innotech ESG vs. Jerry Aldridge v. Regions Bank
No. 25-1231No. 25-1376No. 25-590
Side by side
| Fact | Hastings College Conservation Committee, et al., Petitioners v. California, et al. | ON24, Inc. v. Leadersel Innotech ESG | Jerry Aldridge v. Regions Bank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1231 | 25-1376 | 25-590 |
| 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. Whether a state law that requires a specified name and governance structure for a public college and is enacted in exchange for payment of a specified sum creates binding contractual obligations on the part of that state subject to the protections of the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 2. Whether state legislation posthumously declaring an individual as having engaged in criminal conduct and, on that basis, stripping benefits secured by state law for that individual and his descendants violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. | 1. Whether an issuer violates Section 11(a)’s misleading-omissions prong by describing unmaterialized risks as hypothetical. 2. Whether an issuer violates Section 11(a)’s misleading-omissions prong whenever it omits information related to a disclosed fact regardless of whether the omission renders an affirmative statement misleading. 3. Whether an issuer violates Item 303 of Regulation S-K—and thus the prong of Section 11(a) prohibiting the omission of required statements—by failing to disclose immaterial facts as “known trends or uncertainties” that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on financial results. | 1. Whether, when proceeding under § 1132(a)(3), a beneficiary may seek surcharge, a remedy that this Court has described as being “exclusively equitable.” CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 442 (2011)? 2. Whether, if surcharge is unavailable under § 1132(a)(3), a beneficiary may pursue state-law claims arising out of a contract that is separate and apart from an ERISA plan and that is not required by the plan, or whether these state-law claims are preempted, thereby leaving the beneficiary without a remedy under either federal or state law? |
| Summary | This pending case challenges a 2022 California law that renamed Hastings College of the Law and ended a board seat reserved for the heirs of its founder, Serranus Clinton Hastings. The petitioners argue that California broke binding commitments made in an 1878 law in exchange for Hastings’s $100,000 payment and unconstitutionally punished him and his descendants through legislation. | ON24 and other petitioners ask the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling involving alleged omissions and misleading statements in a securities registration statement under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The petition argues that the court applied overly broad standards for liability when a company describes risks as hypothetical or does not disclose certain information under SEC Item 303. | This case concerns whether ERISA beneficiaries can obtain a monetary equitable remedy called surcharge for alleged wrongdoing by a plan fiduciary. It also asks whether, if ERISA does not allow that remedy, ERISA preempts state-law claims based on a separate contract, leaving beneficiaries without a federal or state remedy. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Business and Regulation
- Why compared
- Reviewed Business and Regulation 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.