Head-to-head

Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al. vs. Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al. vs. Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of California

Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.

The matchup

Docket 25-1144Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025 Docket 25-1325Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025 Docket 25-1370Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of CaliforniaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025

Relationship

Shared issue: Administrative Law
Why compared: Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.

Questions presented

Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.: 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?
Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al.: Whether the Act’s delegation of law-enforcement and rulemaking power to the private Authority violates the Constitution’s private non-delegation doctrine?
Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of California: 1. Did the Supreme court of California in error, abuse discretion and show bias denying Petition (S293171) on Dec 10 25 and left unresolved conflicted issue of law and factual issue? (including violation of 7th, 5th, 1st, 4th, 14th amendment amendments) ? (Opinion attached as Exhibit A) . 2. Did the Fifth District Court of Appeal err in Case No. F088523 (Sept. 25, 2025) by failing to apply the mandatory independent-judgment standard of review required when a fundamental vested right is at stake, and instead affirming on a deferential and incomplete record while disregarding material facts and deferring to agency and Attorney General arguments rather than independently evaluating the administrative record and the Tulare Superior Court rulings? (Exhibit B)? 3. Did the Tulare County Superior Court err or abuse its discretion on August 20, 2024, by denying Petitioner Samreen Riaz ’ s petition for writ of mandate in the case vcu303441? (Exhibit G)? 4. Did the Dental Board/DCA err or abuse its discretion by denying the August 16, 2023 reconsideration petition on August 21, 2023, and did revocation of petitioner ’ s professional license constitute a compensable taking under doctrine of eminent domain the 5th and 14th Amendments (Boom Co. v. Patterson, 1879) (Exhibit D)? 5. Did the Dental Board of California err and abuse its discretion by issuing a mental and physical examination order under Business and Professions Code §820 on June 24, 2022- the same day the petition was filed, Without prior service of the petition to ophthalmology patient prior to obtaining the order(Exhibit E )? ”? 6. Did the DBCA violate petitioner ’ s constitutional and patient rights by initiating a petition mental exam without serving the petition, for a reason that an ophthalmology patient for exercising First Amendment rights?

Go deeper

Administrative Law cases

Sources

Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.