Cases compared
National Small Business United, dba National Small Business Association v. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury vs. Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. vs. Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1201No. 25-1223No. 25-1246
Side by side
| Fact | National Small Business United, dba National Small Business Association v. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. | Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1201 | 25-1223 | 25-1246 |
| 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 the reporting requirements exceed Congress’s enumerated powers on their face. 2. Whether the reporting requirements violate the Fourth Amendment on their face. | Whether, under EAJA, "any civil action" encompasses an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention? | 1. Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) impose a “reasonable attorney” or a “reasonable applicant” test for due diligence? If the former, are there exceptions to account for egregious misconduct by an applicant’s lawyer? 2. Would construing the AEDPA to bar merits review in a capital case of a substantial IAC claim, one not previously reviewed on the merits by any court, violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 3. When an applicant is unaware of the relevant facts when he files a first-in-time application for habeas relief, are later-filed Brady and Napue/Giglio claim “second or successive”? 4. Is a court reviewing a federal habeas application, as a matter of due process or otherwise, required to resolve disputes over authority to speak for the State? What level of deference is owed to the State’s position expressed by an authorized representative? |
| Summary | This case challenges the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires many state-created companies to report information about their beneficial owners to the federal government. The petitioners argue that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power by imposing the reporting requirement on companies based solely on their existence under state law; the Eleventh Circuit upheld the law. | This case asks whether a person who wins a habeas corpus challenge to civil immigration detention may recover attorney’s fees and costs from the federal government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Court will decide whether such a habeas case counts as a “civil action” under that law. | Richard Vasquez asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to consider his federal habeas claims on the merits. He argues that the court wrongly treated his later filing as barred under AEDPA’s rules for successive petitions, even though he says his lawyers’ serious failures and the State’s alleged nondisclosure of false evidence prevented him from raising the claims earlier. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure 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.