|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1184||6th Cir.||Dec 4, 2018||Apr 1, 2019||6-3||Kagan||OT 2018|
Holding: A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on April 1, 2019. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 21 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2018)|
|Feb 21 2018||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.|
|Mar 20 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 26, 2018 to April 25, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 21 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 25, 2018.|
|Apr 20 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 25, 2018 to May 14, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 20 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 14, 2018.|
|May 14 2018||Brief of respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration in opposition filed.|
|May 21 2018||Reply of petitioner Michael J. Biestek filed.|
|May 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/7/2018.|
|Jun 11 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/14/2018.|
|Jun 18 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/21/2018.|
|Jun 25 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 25 2018||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.|
|Jul 13 2018||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the opening briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 13 2018||Joint motion to extend the time to file the opening briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 27, 2018. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 15, 2018.|
|Aug 03 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Michael J. Biestek|
|Aug 03 2018||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Michael J. Biestek.|
|Aug 27 2018||Brief of petitioner Michael J. Biestek filed.|
|Sep 04 2018||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Disability Representatives filed.|
|Sep 04 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, et al. filed.|
|Oct 01 2018||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Oct 09 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 4, 2018|
|Oct 15 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.|
|Oct 15 2018||Brief of Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration not accepted for filing. (Revised brief submitted - 10/16/18)|
|Oct 15 2018||Brief of respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration filed. (10/16/18)|
|Oct 19 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Nov 14 2018||Reply of petitioner Michael J. Biestek filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 04 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Ishan Bhabha, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Apr 01 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.|
|May 03 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.