Cases compared
Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al. vs. Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al. vs. Evangelos Souliotis, Petitioner v. Donald C. Darnell
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1254No. 25-1325No. 25-1379
Side by side
| Fact | Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al. | Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al. | Evangelos Souliotis, Petitioner v. Donald C. Darnell |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1254 | 25-1325 | 25-1379 |
| 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 | Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requires just compensation when a state agency sells the only feasible access to private property, rendering it landlocked and valueless? | Whether the Act’s delegation of law-enforcement and rulemaking power to the private Authority violates the Constitution’s private non-delegation doctrine? | 1. Does the stare decisis authority of a court’s decision infringing on exclusive legislative power permit that court’s decision to perpetuate and broadly apply that decision against Petitioner and all subsequent litigants? 2. Does stare decisis require a court to uncritically and broadly apply against Petitioner that prior decision that unmistakably infringes upon the separation of powers, and upon the contract rights, agency, and self-determination of our citizenry—thereby undermining the right of millions of Americans to choose what they are, or are not, willing to agree to within a contract? 3. At the core, should the broadly applied stare decisis authority of the court be allowed to infringe on fundamental legislative power and thereby create a new class of contract law, a non-consensual contract? |
| Summary | This case concerns whether Nevada government entities must pay compensation after a state agency allegedly sold the only practical access route to the Harvey Trust’s property, leaving it landlocked and without value. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Nevada Supreme Court’s handling of the trust’s Fifth Amendment takings claim. | Oklahoma and other petitioners ask the Supreme Court to review the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, which gives the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority significant rulemaking and enforcement duties over the horse-racing industry. They argue that Congress unconstitutionally gave governmental power to a private entity; the Sixth Circuit rejected that challenge. | Souliotis asks the Supreme Court to review a Sixth Circuit decision that he argues improperly created or enforced contractual obligations without consent. He contends that continued reliance on that precedent violates separation-of-powers principles and interferes with individuals’ freedom to choose the terms of their contracts. |
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.