|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Oct 13, 2021
Issue: Whether a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “military technician (dual status)” is “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 08 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 13, 2020)|
|Oct 08 2020||Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.|
|Oct 16 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 13, 2020 to December 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 19 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2020.|
|Dec 03 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 14, 2020 to January 13, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Dec 04 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 13, 2021.|
|Jan 13 2021||Brief of respondent Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security in opposition filed.|
|Jan 27 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.|
|Jan 27 2021||Reply of petitioner David Babcock filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 22 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.|
|Mar 01 2021||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 01 2021||As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.|
|Mar 12 2021||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Mar 22 2021||Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 20, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 26, 2021.|
|May 14 2021||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner David Babcock.|
|May 20 2021||Brief of petitioner David Babcock filed.|
|May 27 2021||Brief amici curiae of National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. filed.|
|Jun 07 2021||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jul 13 2021||ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, October 13, 2021.|
|Jul 26 2021||Brief of respondent Kijakazi, Acting Comm'r of SSA filed.|
|Jul 28 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.|
|Jul 28 2021||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit has been electronically filed.|
|Aug 02 2021||Motion of David Babcock for an extension of time not accepted for filing. (August 06, 2021)|
|Aug 03 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 05 2021||Application (21A17) to extend the time to file the reply brief on the merits from August 25, 2021 to September 8, 2021, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.|
|Aug 11 2021||Application (21A17) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file the reply brief on the merits until September 8, 2021.|
|Sep 08 2021||Reply of petitioner David Babcock filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 13 2021||Argued. For petitioner: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Nicole Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Oct 14 2021||Letter of Kijakazi, Acting Comm'r of SSA submitted.|
The court has rescheduled oral argument in Shinn v. Ramirez, an important case involving habeas rights and the death penalty, for Dec. 8.
#SCOTUS also issues revised December argument calendar, adding Shinn v. Ramirez (moved to December from November to accommodate Texas cases) on Dec. 8: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/10-26-21-Amended-DEC-2021-Monthly-Argument-Session-Calendar.pdf
#SCOTUS issues order on divided argument in next week's Texas abortion cases, allows Texas to file one consolidated (but oversized) brief for both cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/102621zr_o7jp.pdf
Happening now outside SCOTUS: Several dozens supporters of expanding the size of the court are holding a rally. Speakers include Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Tina Smith, and Rep. Mondaire Jones.
On Friday, the Supreme Court moved the Texas abortion litigation off the shadow docket and onto the "rocket docket." @maryrziegler explains how the expedited schedule is an important shift from how the court initially handled the issue in early September.
Supreme speed: The court puts abortion on the rocket docket - SCOTUSblog
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: ...
The court has adjusted its November argument schedule to reflect the accelerated consideration of the Texas abortion law.
#SCOTUS issues new oral argument calendar for November in light of today's orders scheduling Texas abortion cases for Nov. 1. Ramirez v. Collier, originally scheduled for Nov. 1, is now set for Nov. 9; Shinn v. Ramirez, originally set for Nov. 1, will be argued in December.
We've got two ways to catch up on what the Supreme Court did today on the Texas anti-abortion law.
For prose lovers, here's @AHoweBlogger's story: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/10/court-wont-block-texas-abortion-ban-but-fast-tracks-cases-for-argument-on-nov-1/
For the more video-inclined, here's @katieleebarlow's TikTok explainer: