Cases compared
Katherine Novotny, et al., Petitioners v. Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, et al. vs. Jonathan Granado, Petitioner v. Juanita Ramirez, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Estevan Ramirez vs. Samuel Storey v. United States
Gun Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1324No. 25-1338No. 25-7216
Side by side
| Fact | Katherine Novotny, et al., Petitioners v. Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, et al. | Jonathan Granado, Petitioner v. Juanita Ramirez, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Estevan Ramirez | Samuel Storey v. United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1324 | 25-1338 | 25-7216 |
| 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 | Whether Maryland’s numerous prohibitions on carrying firearms in many places frequented by the general public violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments? | 1. Whether Officer Jonathan Granado’s use of deadly force on September 3, 2021 violated the Fourth Amendment when, after a high-speed chase, Estevan Ramirez emerged from the vehicle with gun in hand, refused an order to “get on the ground,” physically resisted an officer’s attempt to arrest, and attempted to escape towards the darkness of a residential neighborhood with gun still in hand. a. Did the panel correctly set forth the elements of an excessive force claim? b. Did the panel invert the qualified immunity analysis by shifting the burden from Ramirez to Officer Granado? c. Does the panel’s approach to qualified immunity force officers “to play roulette with their own existence”? 2. Whether any court other than the Supreme Court can clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, and if so, whether the panel majority correctly identified the clearly established law applicable to this case. 3. Whether this Court should resolve the controversies regarding qualified imm. | 1. Can a court of appeals disregard the government’s deliberate waiver of whether a jury trial right violation is harmless in the enhanced statutory penalty context and affirm over the government’s request that the defendant be resentenced without statutory enhancement? 2. Should the Court overrule Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), as inconsistent with Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles underlying this Court’s precedent in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny? 3. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to Petitioner Samuel Storey’s intrastate possession? |
| Summary | This case challenges Maryland laws that bar people from carrying firearms in numerous places open to the public. The petitioners argue that those location-based restrictions violate the Second Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. | This case concerns whether Officer Jonathan Granado is liable under the Fourth Amendment for using deadly force against Estevan Ramirez after a vehicle pursuit and confrontation in which Ramirez allegedly had a gun. Granado asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity and its analysis of excessive force and clearly established law. | Samuel Storey asks the Supreme Court to review his federal firearms conviction and enhanced sentence. He argues that the Eleventh Circuit should not have found a jury-trial error harmless after the government waived that argument and sought resentencing, that the Court should reconsider its harmless-error rule in Neder, and that the federal felon-in-possession law exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power as applied to purely intrastate possession. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Gun Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Gun 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.