|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1442||10th Cir.||Mar 3, 2021||Apr 22, 2021||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2020|
Holding: Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 22, 2021. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 29 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 31, 2020)|
|Jun 29 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.|
|Jul 29 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 31, 2020 to August 31, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 30 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 31, 2020.|
|Aug 24 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 31, 2020 to September 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 25 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 30, 2020.|
|Sep 29 2020||Brief of respondent Saul, Andrew M. filed.|
|Oct 14 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.|
|Oct 14 2020||Reply of petitioners Willie Earl Carr, et al. filed.|
|Nov 02 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.|
|Nov 09 2020||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 20-105 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Nov 09 2020||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1442. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-1442. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Nov 09 2020||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.|
|Dec 09 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, John J. Davis, Thomas Hilliard, Kimberly L. Iwan, Destiny M. Thurman|
|Dec 09 2020||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 20-105.|
|Dec 11 2020||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 19-1442.|
|Dec 18 2020||Brief amici curiae of Collective of Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judges in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 28 2020||Brief of petitioners John J. Davis, Thomas Hilliard, Kimberly L. Iwan, Destiny M. Thurman (in 20-105) filed.|
|Dec 28 2020||Brief of petitioners Willie Earl Carr, et al. filed.|
|Dec 30 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 31 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. VIDED.|
|Dec 31 2020||Brief amici curiae of Social Security, Government Benefit Program and Administrative Law Professors and Scholars filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 31 2020||Brief amici curiae of National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 04 2021||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Disability Representatives filed.VIDED|
|Jan 04 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 04 2021||Amicus brief of The New Civil Liberties Alliance & Cato Institute not accepted for filing. (January 05, 2021 - Corrected version to be submitted).|
|Jan 04 2021||Brief amici curiae of The New Civil Liberties Alliance & Cato Institute filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 11 2021||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 19-1442 GRANTED.|
|Jan 11 2021||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 20-105 GRANTED.|
|Jan 14 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 25 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|Jan 27 2021||Brief of respondent Saul, Andrew M., Commissioner of Social Security filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 28 2021||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit is electronically filed.|
|Feb 17 2021||Reply of petitioners Willie Earl Carr, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 18 2021||Reply of petitioners John J. Davis, Thomas Hilliard, Kimberly L. Iwan, Destiny M. Thurman filed (in 20-105). (Distributed)|
|Mar 03 2021||Argued. For petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Apr 22 2021||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II–A, and II–B–2, and in which Breyer, J., joined as to Parts I, II–B–1, and II–B–2. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch and Barrett, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. VIDED.|
|May 24 2021||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.