Cases compared
National Small Business United, dba National Small Business Association v. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury vs. Texas Top Cop Shop, Incorporated v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General vs. Tracey L. Brown, Petitioner v. Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of Nevada, et al.
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1201No. 25-1290No. 25-6899
Side by side
| Fact | National Small Business United, dba National Small Business Association v. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury | Texas Top Cop Shop, Incorporated v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General | Tracey L. Brown, Petitioner v. Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of Nevada, et al. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1201 | 25-1290 | 25-6899 |
| 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. | 1. Whether the Act’s regulation of corporations merely because they exist under state law exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. 2. Whether the Act’s suspicionless and warrantless searches to further a generalized interest in expedient law enforcement violate the Fourth Amendment. | 1. Did the Ninth Circuit Panel err in a federal habeas case where, following an ex parte contact during trial between multiple jurors and a key prosecution cooperating witness and her non-testifying friend one business day before the jury began deliberations, the friend vouched for the truthfulness of the cooperating prosecution witness and urged them to concentrate on certain prosecution evidence over other evidence, the Ninth Circuit Panel required the defendant to prove prejudice sufficient to grant a mistrial, rather than observing the presumption of prejudice and placing the burden on the prosecution to rebut that presumption and prove lack of prejudice, as required by the clearly established Supreme Court precedents of Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892), Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966) and their progeny? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit Panel err when it ruled in a federal habeas case that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. State, 119 Nev. 554 (2003), which created the state court rule described above that eliminated the presumption of prejudice and shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense contrary to this Court’s clearly established precedents, and which was used by the state court below to uphold the denial of two motions for a new trial, did not violate this Court’s precedents in Remmer I, supra, Mattox, supra, Parker, supra and their progeny? 3. Are the issues set forth above important questions of federal law that have not been, but should be, settled by this Court? |
| 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 challenges the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires many corporations to report identifying information about their beneficial owners to the federal government. The petitioners argue that Congress lacked constitutional authority to impose the reporting requirement and that the required disclosure is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. | Tracey Brown seeks federal habeas relief based on an alleged improper contact during his trial between jurors and a key cooperating prosecution witness and the witness’s friend shortly before deliberations. He argues that the Ninth Circuit wrongly required him to show prejudice from the contact instead of presuming prejudice and requiring the prosecution to show that the contact caused no harm. |
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.