|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.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.