Cases compared
Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association vs. Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, et al., Petitioners v. Mi Familia Vota, et al. vs. Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. Promise Arizona, et al.
Civil Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1002No. 25-1019No. 25-1022
Side by side
| Fact | Rajeh A. Saadeh, Petitioner v. New Jersey State Bar Association | Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, et al., Petitioners v. Mi Familia Vota, et al. | Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. Promise Arizona, et al. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1002 | 25-1019 | 25-1022 |
| 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 | Whether the First Amendment overrides antidiscrimination laws when the discrimination furthers the defendant’s views about “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion”? | 1. Does the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibit Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce “satisfactory evidence” of U. S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form? 2. Does the National Voter Registration Act prohibit Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U. S. citizens? | 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? |
| Summary | Rajeh 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. | Arizona legislative leaders ask the Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision that blocked parts of Arizona’s voter-registration and mail-voting rules requiring documentary proof of citizenship or residence. The case also concerns the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that a related Arizona law directing election officials to check databases for potentially ineligible voters was enacted with intentional discrimination. | Arizona asks the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed nonprofit groups to challenge Arizona voter-citizenship laws and concluded that the laws were enacted with intentional discrimination. Arizona argues that the groups lacked standing based on possible injuries to unidentified members and that the Ninth Circuit improperly overturned the trial court’s finding of no discriminatory purpose. |
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.