Cases compared
Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos vs. In Re Gerald Nelson, Petitioner vs. Naquea Elaine Johnson v. New Jersey
Immigration cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1415No. 25-6193No. 25-6617
Side by side
| Fact | Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos | In Re Gerald Nelson, Petitioner | Naquea Elaine Johnson v. New Jersey |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1415 | 25-6193 | 25-6617 |
| 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 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondents, are present in the United States without having been admitted? 2. Whether detaining respondents without a bond hearing during their removal proceedings comports with due process? | 1. According to the principles established in In re Winn, 213 U.S. 458 (1909), is a writ of mandamus the appropriate remedy for compelling a Circuit court to remand a case to state court when the removal was improper? 2. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule articulated in Caterpillar INC. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987), can an employer and union successfully remove a case to federal court if their only argument for federal jurisdiction is a defense of complete preemption under section 301 of the LMRA? 3. What are the jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal courts for section 301 labor cases, as defined by concurrent jurisdiction recognized in Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney 368 U.S. 502 (1962)? 4. Does intentional misrepresentation, false and misleading statements to establish original jurisdiction meet the high bar for proving fraud upon the court, or is it a lesser form of misconduct? | 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. |
| Summary | This pending case concerns whether federal immigration law requires immigration officials to detain certain noncitizens who are in the United States without formal admission while their removal cases are pending. It also asks whether holding those individuals without a bond hearing during those proceedings violates the Constitution's due process guarantee. | Gerald Nelson asks the Supreme Court to review whether a federal circuit court should have ordered a case returned to state court after its removal to federal court. The petition raises questions about federal jurisdiction over labor claims under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the availability of mandamus to require remand, and alleged misrepresentations concerning jurisdiction. | 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. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Immigration
- Why compared
- Reviewed Immigration 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.