Cases compared
Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al. vs. Evangelos Souliotis, Petitioner v. Donald C. Darnell vs. Department of the Air Force, et al., Petitioners v. Prutehi Guahan, fka Prutehi Litekyan
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1325No. 25-1379No. 25-579
Side by side
| Fact | Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al. | Evangelos Souliotis, Petitioner v. Donald C. Darnell | Department of the Air Force, et al., Petitioners v. Prutehi Guahan, fka Prutehi Litekyan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1325 | 25-1379 | 25-579 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | Argued Oct 7, 2026 |
| Question presented | 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? | 1. Whether the federal government's submission to a state or territorial regulator of an application to renew a RCRA permit is "final agency action" that is immediately reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704. 2. Whether the federal government must comply with the general environmental-review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., before submitting a permit-renewal application under RCRA, which sets forth its own specific procedures to review environmental impacts in the context of hazardous-waste treatment. |
| Summary | 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. | The Court will decide whether the Air Force’s application to Guam to renew a hazardous-waste permit for operations at Andersen Air Force Base can be immediately challenged in court, and whether the Air Force had to complete a broader environmental review before filing the application. The dispute concerns how the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the hazardous-waste permitting system under RCRA apply to the federal government. |
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.