Head-to-head
Sualeh Kamal Ashraf, Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration vs. Fousseini Tounkara, Petitioner v. James Macy, Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, et al. vs. Diana Zuniga Kammunkun, Petitioner v. Department of Defense
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-7384Sualeh Kamal Ashraf, Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement AdministrationBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-7519Fousseini Tounkara, Petitioner v. James Macy, Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-7612Diana Zuniga Kammunkun, Petitioner v. Department of DefenseBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Administrative Law
- Why compared
- Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Sualeh Kamal Ashraf, Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration
- 1. Whether, after Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022), the Controlled Substances Act permits the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke a physician’s registration—and a court of appeals to affirm that revocation—without any finding that the physician knowingly or intentionally violated the Act? 2. Whether due process permits an agency and a reviewing court to sustain the revocation of a professional license where the respondent demonstrates that material evidence relied upon by the agency was false or unreliable, and the court declines to address that showing? 3. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s categorical refusal to apply Ruan’s mens rea requirement to administrative revocation proceedings conflicts with this Court’s interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act and creates an incentive for the government to bypass criminal safeguards by proceeding administratively?
- Fousseini Tounkara, Petitioner v. James Macy, Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, et al.
- 1. Whether a reviewing court may uphold an Administrative Law Judge's adverse credibility determination in a Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act case when that determination is unsupported by substantial evidence and contradicted by the preponderance of medical and testimonial proof. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit's deference to an AU's credibility finding — despite lack of factual support and conflict with uncontroverted medical evidence — violates the Fifth Amendment and the statutory requirement that agency decisions reflect the entire record. 3. Whether a court of appeals may refuse to consider exculpatory medical and audio evidence solely because it was excluded from the administrative record where the exclusion resulted directly from the AU's procedural rulings. 4. Whether a reviewing court may affirm an administrative decision where the AU (1) denied Petitioner the right to present his case first; (2) cut off cross-examination of a vocational expert; (3) excluded a disputed allegation as "irrelevant" while still relying on it; and (4) returned Petitioner's pretrial exhibits before they could be admitted, ensuring they were not part of the record.
- Diana Zuniga Kammunkun, Petitioner v. Department of Defense
- 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process permits an agency official to materially revise investigative findings after the investigative process has concluded, direct adverse action based upon those revised findings, and then serve as final adjudicator of the employee's response to those revised findings? 2. Whether an appellate court may affirm rejection of a federal employee's due process claim by resolving a materially different legal question than the constitutional issue actually presented for review?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.