Cases compared
Kevin Steele, Petitioner v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs vs. Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al. vs. Google LLC, Petitioner v. VirtaMove, Corp., et al.
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1123No. 25-1144No. 25-1230
Side by side
| Fact | Kevin Steele, Petitioner v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs | Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al. | Google LLC, Petitioner v. VirtaMove, Corp., et al. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1123 | 25-1144 | 25-1230 |
| 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 | Under the statutory and regulatory notice requirements governing VA decisions since 1990, is the VA permitted to retroactively deem a claim “implicitly denied” when the agency never issued a notice explicitly setting forth the claim at issue or the reason for its denial? | 1. In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, 601 U.S. 416 (2024) (“CFPB”), this Court upheld CFPB’s funding mechanism under the Appropriations Clause because—even though it is funded outside the annual appropriations process—Congress enacted a statute identifying a “source and purpose” for the funds and there was a statutory cap on how much CFPB can draw from the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Housing Finance Agency is also funded outside the annual appropriations process. But, unlike CFPB, Congress has not set a ceiling on how much FHFA may raise and spend. Does FHFA’s funding mechanism, 12 U.S.C. § 4516, violate the Appropriations Clause for lack of a cap, sum certain, or other ascertainable limit? 2. In CFPB, members of this Court recognized “Congress obviously cannot evade the Appropriations Clause simply by placing a different label on an authorization” through a statute providing that “[f]unds . . . shall not be construed to be Government funds or appropriated monies.” Similarly, 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) states that “[t]he amounts received by the Director from any assessment . . . shall not be construed to be Government or public funds or appropriated money.” Does 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) violate the Appropriations Clause? 3. The nondelegation doctrine requires Congress to impose intelligible principles to constrain the Executive Branch. 12 U.S.C. § 4516 allows FHFA’s Director to collect “the amount sufficient to provide for reasonable costs . . . and expenses of the Agency.” Does 12 U.S.C. § 4516 violate the nondelegation doctrine? | 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. |
| Summary | Kevin Steele asks the Supreme Court to review whether the Department of Veterans Affairs may treat a veteran’s benefits claim as denied by implication, even though the VA never sent a decision notice that specifically identified that claim and explained why it was denied. The case concerns whether such an implicit denial can start the deadline to appeal and prevent the claim from remaining pending for possible retroactive benefits. | Daisey Trust and other petitioners ask the Supreme Court to review whether the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s funding system is constitutional. They argue that Congress gave the agency too much freedom to collect and spend money without an annual appropriation or a fixed spending limit. | 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. |
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.