Cases compared
Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, et al., Petitioners v. Mi Familia Vota, et al. vs. Anthony Lewis v. HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital vs. N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota
Civil Rights cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1019No. 25-1041No. 25-1287
Side by side
| Fact | Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, et al., Petitioners v. Mi Familia Vota, et al. | Anthony Lewis v. HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital | N. R. v. Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1019 | 25-1041 | 25-1287 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Dismissed | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 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 district court deprived Dr. Lewis and his counsel of their statutory or procedural right to amend the First Amended Complaint without leave of court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 2. Whether the district court violated Dr. Lewis’s and his counsel’s First Amendment right to petition pursuant to the holding in NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (First Amendment) and its progeny. 3. Whether the district court violated Dr. Lewis’s and his counsel’s Thirteenth Amendment right to petition pursuant to the holding in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 22 (1883) (Thirteenth Amendment; Civil Rights Act of 1866) and its progeny. | 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. |
| Summary | 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. | Dr. Anthony Lewis sought Supreme Court review of lower-court proceedings involving HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital. His petition, which was dismissed, argued that the district court wrongly prevented him from amending his complaint as allowed by the federal rules and violated asserted First and Thirteenth Amendment rights to petition the courts. | Former 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. |
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.