Cases compared
Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist v. Joel Frederic, et ux. vs. Grand v. City of University Heights vs. Perry v. Stacy Marteney
No. 25-1131No. 25-965No. 26-319
Side by side
| Fact | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux. | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al. | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual School |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.25-1131 | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.25-965 | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual School26-319 |
| Status | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.Before Arguments | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Before Arguments | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual SchoolBefore Arguments |
| Date | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.Argued Jan 20, 2027 | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Argued Dec 9, 2026 | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual SchoolOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) |
| Question presented | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.1. Whether prohibiting a religious organization from constructing a religious structure on its own property imposes a substantial burden under RLUIPA. 2. Whether a zoning ordinance violates RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision by imposing express restrictions on religious assemblies that do not apply to nonreligious assemblies. | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Whether the First Amendment's established chilling-effect doctrine-under which a credible government threat that deters the exercise of fundamental rights constitutes a complete and independently actionable constitutional injury-is displaced by Williamson Cnty .'s land-use finality requirement when a plaintiff alleges that government threats both before and after a Planning Commission meeting chilled religious exercise, worship, and assembly. | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual School1. Whether a law that exempts people based on secular criteria but not religious reasons is subject to strict scrutiny and violates the First Amendment even when the religious burden is implicated by an act—like attending school or working—that is not itself religiously motivated. 2. Whether a law is subject to strict scrutiny under Mahmoud when it imposes a non-curricular requirement that substantially burdens parents’ rights to guide the religious development of their child. |
| Summary | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.This pending case concerns whether Kentucky land-use rules unlawfully prevented Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist from building a religious structure on its own property. The petition argues that the rules violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by substantially burdening religious exercise and by treating religious assemblies less favorably than comparable nonreligious assemblies. | Daniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Daniel Grand alleges that University Heights officials’ threats concerning his proposed religious gatherings at his home deterred worship and assembly protected by the First Amendment. The case concerns whether he may pursue that claim even though the city had not made a final land-use decision about the gatherings. | Krystle Perry, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, K. P., et vir v. Stacy Marteney, as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual SchoolThe Perrys say officials disenrolled their daughter from West Virginia’s virtual public school because she was not fully vaccinated and denied their request for a religious exemption, while exempting some homeschooled and small-group students. The Fourth Circuit rejected their First Amendment claim, and the Perrys have asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- First Amendment
- Why compared
- Reviewed First Amendment 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.