Head-to-head
Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of California vs. Lina Noland, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Trade Commission vs. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1370Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of CaliforniaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1403Lina Noland, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Trade CommissionBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-332Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Rebecca Kelly SlaughterDecidedDecided Jun 29, 2026
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Administrative Law
- Why compared
- Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- 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?
- Lina Noland, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Trade Commission
- 1. Whether, after AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Federal Trade Commission may preserve an ex parte Section 13(b) asset freeze and receivership and obtain a revenue-based, multi-million-dollar monetary judgment through civil contempt where the judgment functions as restitution or disgorgement, is not tied to identified sustained losses, and the only rule-violation damages awarded under Section 19 were $6,829. 2. Whether the Seventh Amendment and due process permit a federal agency to obtain a $7,306,873.14 revenue-based monetary sanction, labeled civil compensatory contempt, through a bench proceeding where the sanction operates as a legal money judgment rather than compensation for proven individualized losses and where the ex parte freeze impaired Petitioners' ability to fund and preserve a jury defense.
- Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter
- Do the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.