Cases compared
Hastings College Conservation Committee v. California vs. James Tindall, Petitioner v. United States vs. Jerry Aldridge v. Regions Bank
Business and Regulation cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1231No. 25-1412No. 25-590
Side by side
| Fact | Hastings College Conservation Committee v. California | James Tindall, Petitioner v. United States | Jerry Aldridge v. Regions Bank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1231 | 25-1412 | 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 Respondent’s multi-year possession, control and use of Petitioner’s property is a taking sufficient to trigger the payment of “just compensation”, as required by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? 2. Whether the lower courts properly applied the doctrines of res judicata and claim preclusion when they ignored the two different and non-overlapping sets of transactional facts as clearly identified in Petitioner’s Amended 2025 Complaint (the first set of facts ending on September 12, 2023, and the second set of facts beginning on September 13, 2023) when determining if the lower court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1)? 3. Whether the lower courts properly applied the doctrines of res judicata and claim preclusion when both of the lower courts failed to correctly identify Petitioner’s property interests taken by Respondent, failed to identify when Petitioner’s property interests were taken and continue to be taken by Respondent and failed to identify when Respondent continues to breach the implied contract between the parties, which are necessary predicates to the legal conclusions reached by the lower courts? 4. Whether the lower courts properly applied Due Process, as required by the Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when they failed to even identify the standard to be applied? | 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. | James Tindall asks the Supreme Court to review lower-court rulings rejecting his claims that the United States’ continued possession, control, and use of his property require just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. He also challenges the lower courts’ use of claim-preclusion rules and their handling of jurisdiction, property interests, an alleged implied contract, and due process. | 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.