|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-480||6th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 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.|
Monday's decision rejecting sentence reductions for low-level crack-cocaine offenders may have been unanimous, but @ekownyankah writes that there is far more going on than the ruling's dry textual analysis might indicate. Read his incisive analysis here:
After decades, Congress reduced the racially unjust crack/cocaine disparity... raising amounts required for prison time. Why would Congress have left small time dealers to rot in prison for decades?
My thoughts on SCOTUS's ruling in Terry v. United States:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-heavy-on-text-light-on-history/
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
SCOTUS rules 9-0 that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for re-sentencing under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Here is the opinion in Terry v. United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
SCOTUS sides with the gov in 2 cases about whether certain criminal defendants are entitled to new trials / new plea hearings as a result of the court's 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States which narrowed a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing guns
In a relatively quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS takes up no new cases. But it does invite the federal government to submit a brief on the pending petition that asks the justices to take up a challenge to Harvard's affirmative action policy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
The Supreme Court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. ET followed by opinion(s?) at 10:00.
There are 21 opinions outstanding including Obamacare, LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious liberty, and student speech.
We’ll crank up the live blog at 9:25. Join us!
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 14 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Monday, June 14, as the court releases orders from the June 10 conference and one ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.