Head-to-head
Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association vs. Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. Promise Arizona, et al. vs. N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota
Civil Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1002Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar AssociationBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1022Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. Promise Arizona, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1287N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of MinnesotaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Civil Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Civil Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association
- Whether the First Amendment overrides antidiscrimination laws when the discrimination furthers the defendant’s views about “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion”?
- Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. Promise Arizona, et al.
- 1. Whether the National Voter Registration Act prohibits a State from implementing a program to remove noncitizens from its voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election? 2. Whether the National Voter Registration Act prohibits a State, or a consent decree prohibits Arizona, from requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections using the state registration form? 3. Whether the National Voter Registration Act prohibits a State from denying individuals who used the federal registration form, which does not require documentary proof of citizenship, the ability to vote by mail? 4. Whether the court of appeals erred in remanding for further proceedings to determine if Arizona H.B. 2243 was unconstitutionally enacted with discriminatory intent?
- N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota
- 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.
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.