Cases compared
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Petitioner v. Sean O'Day, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services vs. Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux. vs. Mark B. Cohen, Petitioner v. Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania
First Amendment cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1018No. 25-1131No. 25-1215
Side by side
| Fact | Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Petitioner v. Sean O'Day, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux. | Mark B. Cohen, Petitioner v. Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1018 | 25-1131 | 25-1215 |
| 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. When a state law requires a pharmaceutical company to file reports with the government disclosing information about drug pricing, does that law violate the company’s right to free speech? 2. When a state law permits disclosure of trade secrets reported to a state regulatory body if that disclosure is in the public interest, is that law facially invalid under this Court’s precedent expressly permitting the disclosure of trade secrets in some circumstances? | 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? | 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. |
| Summary | Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America challenges an Oregon law requiring drugmakers to submit and publicly disclose reports explaining certain drug-price increases, including information the group says may contain trade secrets. The petition argues that the law violates the First Amendment by compelling speech and the Fifth Amendment by allowing publication of confidential business information without compensation. | Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist asks the Supreme Court to review a Kentucky land-use dispute involving its effort to build a religious structure on its property. The petition argues that the restrictions violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by substantially burdening religious exercise and by treating religious institutions less favorably than comparable nonreligious institutions. | Mark B. Cohen has asked the Supreme Court to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision involving limits on what sitting judges may say. He argues that the First Amendment requires courts to apply the highest level of constitutional review to content-based restrictions on judges’ speech. |
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.