Head-to-head
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. vs. Ongkaruck Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Fousseini Tounkara, Petitioner v. James Macy, Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, et al.
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-406Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.DecidedDecided Jun 4, 2026Docket 25-466Ongkaruck Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange CommissionDecidedDecided Jun 4, 2026Docket 25-7519Fousseini Tounkara, Petitioner v. James Macy, Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Administrative Law
- Why compared
- Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
- Are provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III?
- Ongkaruck Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission
- May the SEC seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm?
- Fousseini Tounkara, Petitioner v. James Macy, Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, et al.
- 1. Whether a reviewing court may uphold an Administrative Law Judge's adverse credibility determination in a Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act case when that determination is unsupported by substantial evidence and contradicted by the preponderance of medical and testimonial proof. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit's deference to an AU's credibility finding — despite lack of factual support and conflict with uncontroverted medical evidence — violates the Fifth Amendment and the statutory requirement that agency decisions reflect the entire record. 3. Whether a court of appeals may refuse to consider exculpatory medical and audio evidence solely because it was excluded from the administrative record where the exclusion resulted directly from the AU's procedural rulings. 4. Whether a reviewing court may affirm an administrative decision where the AU (1) denied Petitioner the right to present his case first; (2) cut off cross-examination of a vocational expert; (3) excluded a disputed allegation as "irrelevant" while still relying on it; and (4) returned Petitioner's pretrial exhibits before they could be admitted, ensuring they were not part of the record.
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.