Head-to-head
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. Mark Geraghty Wonders, Petitioner v. Office of the Army General Counsel
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1123Kevin Steele, Petitioner v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans AffairsBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1144Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1423Mark Geraghty Wonders, Petitioner v. Office of the Army General CounselBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Administrative Law
- Why compared
- Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Kevin Steele, Petitioner v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- 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?
- Daisey Trust, By and Through Its Trustee Eddie Haddad, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.
- 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?
- Mark Geraghty Wonders, Petitioner v. Office of the Army General Counsel
- 1. Did the Agency violate the law by disregarding a judge ’ s order and release only one of two legal reviews to the Petitioner in a security clearance hearing? 2. Did the Agency violate the law by misrepresenting the withheld legal review as a different Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") document, and completely redacting it, prior to submitting it to the Petitioner? 3. Did the Agency violate the law by denying the Petitioner ’ s subsequent 2012 and 2014 FOIA requests for the withheld legal review based upon claims of attorney-client privilege and FOIA protection not codified into the regulation until 2016?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.