|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-480||6th Cir.||Oct 13, 2021||Jan 13, 2022||8-1||Barrett||OT 2021|
Holding: Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” under 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7)(A)(III).
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Barrett on January 13, 2022. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.
|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 the Solicitor General filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 13 2022||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Feb 14 2022||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.
How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.