Cases compared
Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist v. Joel Frederic, et ux. vs. St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy vs. Grand v. City of University Heights
No. 25-1131No. 25-581No. 25-965
Side by side
| Fact | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux. | St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood | Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.25-1131 | St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood25-581 | Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio25-965 |
| Status | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.Before Arguments | St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early ChildhoodAwaiting Decision | Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, OhioBefore Arguments |
| Date | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.Argued Jan 20, 2027 | St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early ChildhoodArgued Nov 3, 2026 | Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, OhioArgued Dec 9, 2026 |
| 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. | St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early ChildhoodWhether a law lacks general applicability under the Free Exercise Clause only if it permits unfettered discretion or secular exemptions, and does the rule against excluding religious institutions from public benefits apply only to explicit government bans on participation? | Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, OhioWhether 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. |
| 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. | St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early ChildhoodColorado’s universal preschool program funds public and private providers but requires participating schools to agree not to exclude children based on characteristics including sexual orientation and gender identity. Catholic parishes and the Archdiocese of Denver argue that the state may not exclude their preschools while allowing various secular exemptions; the Supreme Court will decide whether Colorado’s policy violates the Free Exercise Clause and rules against religious exclusion from public-benefit programs. | Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, OhioDaniel 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. |
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.