No. 25-7384October Term 2025Before Arguments
Sualeh Kamal Ashraf, Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 Eleventh Circuit.
Question presented
1. Whether, after Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022), the Controlled Substances Act permits the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke a physician’s registration—and a court of appeals to affirm that revocation—without any finding that the physician knowingly or intentionally violated the Act? 2. Whether due process permits an agency and a reviewing court to sustain the revocation of a professional license where the respondent demonstrates that material evidence relied upon by the agency was false or unreliable, and the court declines to address that showing? 3. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s categorical refusal to apply Ruan’s mens rea requirement to administrative revocation proceedings conflicts with this Court’s interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act and creates an incentive for the government to bypass criminal safeguards by proceeding administratively?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 physician is asking the Supreme Court to review a DEA revocation of his registration to handle controlled substances, which the Eleventh Circuit allowed to stand. He argues the DEA should have to show he knowingly or intentionally violated the Controlled Substances Act and that the process was unfair because it relied on false or unreliable evidence.
Argument
The case is still at the petition stage, and no oral argument is scheduled. Ashraf argues that Ruan's intent requirement should apply to DEA revocations and that the proceedings relied on false or unreliable evidence.
Impact
The case could shape how easily the DEA can take away a doctor's prescribing authority in agency proceedings, even without a finding of intentional wrongdoing. That matters to physicians who treat patients with controlled medications and to patients who depend on those prescriptions.
What is Ashraf v. DEA about?
It asks whether the DEA can revoke a doctor's registration without finding the doctor knowingly or intentionally violated federal drug law. It also raises a due process claim about allegedly false or unreliable evidence.
Who could be affected if the Court takes Ashraf v. DEA?
Doctors who prescribe controlled substances could face license-threatening DEA actions under different rules about intent. Patients could also be affected if their physicians lose authority to prescribe needed medications.
What happens next in Ashraf v. DEA?
The justices will decide whether to hear the case. No argument is scheduled yet, and no decision window is available.
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 17, 2026
- Method
- Methodology