No. 25-1144October Term 2025Before Arguments
Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Case status
- Current stage
- Before Arguments
- Latest event
- Accepted by the Court
- Decision timing
- No window until argument is scheduled.
- What it's about
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Question presented
1. In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, 601 U.S. 416 (2024) (“CFPB”), this Court upheld CFPB’s funding mechanism under the Appropriations Clause because—even though it is funded outside the annual appropriations process—Congress enacted a statute identifying a “source and purpose” for the funds and there was a statutory cap on how much CFPB can draw from the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Housing Finance Agency is also funded outside the annual appropriations process. But, unlike CFPB, Congress has not set a ceiling on how much FHFA may raise and spend. Does FHFA’s funding mechanism, 12 U.S.C. § 4516, violate the Appropriations Clause for lack of a cap, sum certain, or other ascertainable limit? 2. In CFPB, members of this Court recognized “Congress obviously cannot evade the Appropriations Clause simply by placing a different label on an authorization” through a statute providing that “[f]unds . . . shall not be construed to be Government funds or appropriated monies.” Similarly, 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) states that “[t]he amounts received by the Director from any assessment . . . shall not be construed to be Government or public funds or appropriated money.” Does 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) violate the Appropriations Clause? 3. The nondelegation doctrine requires Congress to impose intelligible principles to constrain the Executive Branch. 12 U.S.C. § 4516 allows FHFA’s Director to collect “the amount sufficient to provide for reasonable costs . . . and expenses of the Agency.” Does 12 U.S.C. § 4516 violate the nondelegation doctrine?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Accepted by the Court
- Area
Administrative Law
Timing
Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term
The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.
Briefing
What it's about
A trust is asking the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit case over how the Federal Housing Finance Agency funds itself. The petition says FHFA can raise and spend money without a statutory cap and with broad discretion, which may violate the Constitution's rules on federal spending and delegation of power.
Argument
The case is still at the petition stage, and oral argument has not been scheduled. The petition argues FHFA differs from CFPB because Congress set no cap or other clear limit on what FHFA may collect and spend.
Impact
If this challenge gains traction, it could threaten FHFA's self-funding system and spark more attacks on actions paid for through agency assessments. That matters to FHFA and to entities that pay those assessments.
What is Daisey Trust v. FHFA about?
The petition says FHFA can raise and spend money without a clear cap, which may violate the Constitution's rules on federal spending. It also says Congress gave the agency too much discretion over its own budget.
Who could be affected if the Court takes this FHFA funding case?
FHFA and entities that pay its assessments could be directly affected. The case could also influence other fights over agencies funded outside yearly spending bills.
When will the Supreme Court act in Daisey Trust v. FHFA?
No oral argument has been scheduled, and no decision window is available yet. Watch for the justices to decide whether to hear Daisey Trust v. FHFA.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 23, 2026
- Method
- Methodology