Cases compared
Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp. vs. Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States vs. Sualeh Kamal Ashraf, Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1230No. 25-7299No. 25-7384
Side by side
| Fact | Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp. | Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States | Sualeh Kamal Ashraf, Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1230 | 25-7299 | 25-7384 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Whether the PTO retains statutory authority to deny institution based on the “settled expectations” factor, where discretion is committed to the PTO and no statutory provision prohibits consideration of settled expectations. 2. Whether the “drastic and extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is appropriate where Google identifies no statutory text that has been violated and the Federal Circuit has held that an alternative vehicle—a notice-and-comment rulemaking challenge—remains available. | Whether a court of appeals correctly applies Kisor when it finds a term "genuinely ambiguous" based on a multiplicity of dictionary definitions alone, or by invoking the regulation's purpose to introduce rather than resolve ambiguity. | 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? |
| Summary | Google asks the Court to review the Patent and Trademark Office’s policy of refusing to start certain inter partes reviews because a patent owner has “settled expectations” after the patent has been in force for six years. Google also challenges the Federal Circuit’s refusal to issue mandamus requiring the PTO to reconsider that policy. | Ali Mif Bey asks the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling about when courts may defer to a federal agency’s reading of its own regulation. The petition argues that the Fourth Circuit wrongly treated regulatory language as genuinely ambiguous under Kisor v. Wilkie based only on competing dictionary definitions or by using the regulation’s purpose to create, rather than resolve, ambiguity. | Physician Sualeh Kamal Ashraf asks the Supreme Court to review the DEA’s revocation of his registration to handle controlled substances, which the Eleventh Circuit upheld. He argues that the DEA should have had to find that he knowingly or intentionally violated the Controlled Substances Act and that the revocation relied on false or unreliable evidence in violation of due process. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Administrative Law
- Why compared
- Reviewed Administrative Law 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.