Skip to main content

Head-to-head

Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc., Petitioner v. Joel Frederic, et ux. vs. Mark B. Cohen, Petitioner v. Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania vs. N. R., et al., Petitioners v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.

First Amendment cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.

The matchup

Docket 25-1131Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc., Petitioner v. Joel Frederic, et ux.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1215Mark B. Cohen, Petitioner v. Judicial Conduct Board of PennsylvaniaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1287N. R., et al., Petitioners v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025

Relationship

Shared issue
First Amendment
Why compared
Reviewed First Amendment tags connect these current-term public cases.

Questions presented

Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc., Petitioner v. Joel Frederic, et ux.
1. Whether denying Petitioner’s variance violates RLUIPA’s substantial-burden provision, when the zoning board wasn’t authorized to grant the variance, Petitioner failed to show it lacked alternative locations to build the grotto, and Petitioner acquired the parcel knowing a grotto wasn’t allowed there? 2. Whether the zoning ordinance’s arterial-street requirement violates RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision, when it applies equally to religious entities and similarly situated nonreligious entities?
Mark B. Cohen, Petitioner v. Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania
Whether content-based restrictions on the speech of sitting judges must satisfy strict scrutiny, such that the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania violates the First Amendment.
N. R., et al., Petitioners v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.
1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction because the decision below rests on adequate and independent state law grounds. 2. Whether Petitioners lack standing to challenge ICWA and MIFPA’s placement preference s for extended family members because otherwise applicable Minnesota law also grants the twins’ extended family members placement prefer-ence over Petitioners. 3. Whether the Juvenile C ourt’s consideration of Petitioners’ challenge to ICWA and MIFPA as part of the permissive-intervention analysis comported with the First Amendment and due process, when Petitioners had no legally pro-tected stake in the juvenile proceedings, when Petitioners’ challenge was considered only as evidence of Petitioners’ attitude toward the children’s tribal identity, and when the Juve-nile Court had multiple independent grounds for denying permissive intervention. 4. Whether ICWA and MIFPA’s preferences for placement of tribal member children with their extended family members rather than non-relative foster parents — regardless of the race of any potential placement — comports with equal protection.

Go deeper

Sources

  • Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.