Supreme Court Case Tracker

Cases compared

Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association vs. N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota vs. Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources

Civil Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.

No. 25-1002No. 25-1287No. 25-1303

Side by side

Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association vs. N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota vs. Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, compared fact by fact
Fact	Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association	N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota	Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources
Docket	Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association25-1002	N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota25-1287	Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources25-1303
Status	Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar AssociationBefore Arguments	N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of MinnesotaBefore Arguments	Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial ResourcesBefore Arguments
Date	Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar AssociationOctober Term 2025 (2025–2026)	N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of MinnesotaOctober Term 2025 (2025–2026)	Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial ResourcesOctober Term 2025 (2025–2026)
Question presented	Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar AssociationWhether the First Amendment overrides antidiscrimination laws when the discrimination furthers the defendant’s views about “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion”?	N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota1. 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.	Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources1. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses permit the federal judiciary to require its employees to adjudicate sexual harassment and employment discrimination claims through an internal system that lacks an independent decisionmaker, meaningful procedural safeguards, and adequate remedies, rather than affording the essential protections available under Title VII. 2. Whether a circuit’s EDR Plan that does not comport with Title VII’s fundamental principles violates the Congressional Accountability Act and policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States promulgated in accordance thereto.
Summary	Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar AssociationRajeh Saadeh challenges the New Jersey State Bar Association’s practice of reserving certain leadership positions for members of specified minority groups. He argues that the set-asides violate New Jersey’s antidiscrimination law, while the association contends that they are protected expressive activity under the First Amendment.	N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of MinnesotaFormer foster parents of two children covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act challenge Minnesota child-placement decisions that applied federal and state Indian-child placement preferences. They argue that the preferences violate equal protection and that they should be allowed to pursue that challenge in the children’s case; the Supreme Court has not yet decided the petition.	Caryn Devins Strickland v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial ResourcesThis case challenges the federal judiciary’s internal Employment Dispute Resolution system for employees’ sexual-harassment and employment-discrimination claims. The petitioner argues that, because judiciary employees are excluded from Title VII, requiring them to use an internal process without an independent decisionmaker, sufficient safeguards, or comparable remedies violates the Fifth Amendment and conflicts with federal policy calling for Title VII-like protections.

Relationship

Shared issue: Civil Rights
Why compared: Reviewed Civil Rights 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.