Head-to-head
N. R., et al., Petitioners v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al. vs. Steve Snyder, et al., Petitioners v. Village of Luckey, Ohio vs. Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie Page
Civil Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1287N. R., et al., Petitioners v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1361Steve Snyder, et al., Petitioners v. Village of Luckey, OhioBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1371Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie PageBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Civil Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Civil Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- 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.
- Steve Snyder, et al., Petitioners v. Village of Luckey, Ohio
- 1. Whether this Court’s Opinion in Knick, supra, permits a federal cause of action against a municipal entity for an uncompensated physical taking when the municipal entity has materially impaired the value and precluded the alienability of the Petitioners’ property. 2. Whether the actions of the Village in singling out the Petitioners’ property and engaging in concerted actions to prevent its sale at auction are sufficient to state a claim for violation of Petitioners’ rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
- Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie Page
- 1. The Supreme Court of California should not have denied the Petition for Review, and the subject Order against EZOR should be reversed. 2. The Supreme Court of California had inherent and statutory authority to order the relief requested and violated constitutional norms in not properly ruling in favor of EZOR and against ELLIE PAGE ( “ PAGE ”). 3. The Supreme Court of California denied EZOR proper and meaningful constitutional review. 4. Denying EZOR review, and a full-fledged hearing on the merits, with oral argument and a reasoned written decision, was a denial of Due Process and Equal Protection of Laws under both the California and U.S. Constitutions. 5. Denial of review violated EZOR ’ s First Amendment right of access to the courts. 6. Procedural and substantive due process was violated, and valuable Property, legal and equitable rights were abridged and lost, when the Supreme Court of California did not reverse the improper granting of summary judgment by the trial court (App.la), and the Court of Appeal ’ s affirmance of same (App.2a). There are material triable issues in the case that should have been heard by a jury. 7. EZOR was denied his primordial constitutional right to a jury trial pursuant to the 14th and 7th Amendments and appropriate remedies in law and equity. 8. The reversible improper, unlawful granting of summary judgment by the lower courts was cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 9. As there was a plethora of material triable issues, it was a denial of due process equal protection of laws and the right to a jury to grant summary judgment against EZOR and in favor of PAGE.
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.