Cases compared
Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia vs. Benancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of Washington vs. Jose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of Washington
No. 25-183No. 25-901No. 25-918
Side by side
| Fact | Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia | Benancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of Washington | Jose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of Washington |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia25-183 | Benancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of Washington25-901 | Jose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of Washington25-918 |
| Status | Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of GeorgiaBefore Arguments | Benancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonCase remanded | Jose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonCase remanded |
| Date | Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of GeorgiaArgued Nov 30, 2026 | Benancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonRemanded Oct 5, 2026 | Jose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonRemanded Oct 5, 2026 |
| Question presented | Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of GeorgiaWhether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment. | Benancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonWhether a plaintiff’s Equal Protection Clause racial gerrymandering claim is rendered moot when the challenged legislative district is replaced in a different proceeding by a judicial remedy that intensifies the plaintiff’s racial classification injury, and which is subject to ongoing appellate review? | Jose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of Washington1. Whether an individual voter who was granted only permissive intervention below, has no role in implementing state elections, and has not established harm, traceability, or redressability to the lower court’s liability decision or remedial decision on the basis of vote dilution, lacks standing to appeal. 2. Whether a candidate who does not reside in or represent the district at issue, was granted only permissive intervention below, has no role in implementing state elections and does not challenge the counting of votes in his election, who was only helped and not harmed in any way by his new district, and who cannot establish traceability or redressability to the lower court’s liability or remedial decisions, has standing to appeal. 3. Where Intervenors forfeited their racial gerrymandering claim against the remedial map below, race was not considered at all in the drawing of the map, and the district court’s selection of the map was not driven by race such that race could not predominate, does the map trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause? |
| Summary | Thomas Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of GeorgiaThe Court will decide whether Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination by federally funded schools lets employees sue their educational employers for sex discrimination. The case arises from claims by former Georgia Tech women’s basketball coach MaChelle Joseph that the university treated her program less favorably than the men’s program and later terminated her employment. | Benancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonBenancio Garcia III said Washington drew Legislative District 15 based on race in violation of the Constitution, and argued a court-ordered replacement district in another case worsened his injury; the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of his claim as no longer a live dispute (moot). The Supreme Court granted Garcia’s petition for review (agreed to hear the case), wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded) for another look in light of Louisiana v. Callais, without deciding whether the claim is moot. | Jose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonThe case concerns a Voting Rights Act challenge to Washington’s legislative district 15 and José A. Trevino and other intervenors’ objections to a court-ordered replacement map. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for another look (remanded it) in light of Louisiana v. Callais, without deciding the underlying questions. |
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.