Head-to-head
Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association vs. 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.
First Amendment 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 25-1018Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Petitioner v. Sean O'Day, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business ServicesBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1131Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.Before argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- First Amendment
- Why compared
- Reviewed First Amendment 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”?
- 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
- 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?
- Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic, et ux.
- 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?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.