Culbertson v. Berryhill

Culbertson v. Berryhill

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-773	11th Cir.	Nov 7, 2018 Tr.Aud.	Jan 8, 2019	9-0	Thomas	OT 2018

Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Holding: The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on January 8, 2019.

OT2018 #14: "Decent Take" (First Mondays)
Opinion analysis: Social Security cap on attorney’s fees applies separately to successful representation before a court (Kathryn Moore)
Argument analysis: Justices struggle with cap on attorney’s fees for successful representation of Social Security disability claimants (Kathryn Moore)
Argument preview: Justices consider cap on attorney’s fees for successful representation of Social Security disability claimants (Corrected) (Kathryn Moore)
Justices grant four new cases (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Aurora Barnes)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 05 2017	Application (17A279) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 24, 2017 to November 23, 2017, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Sep 15 2017	Application (17A279) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until November 23, 2017.
Nov 21 2017	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.
Nov 21 2017	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 27, 2017)
Dec 20 2017	Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 27, 2017 to January 26, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Dec 21 2017	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 26, 2018
Jan 25 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 8, 2018.
Jan 25 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 26, 2018 to March 8, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Mar 05 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 8, 2018 to March 22, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Mar 06 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 22, 2018.
Mar 20 2018	Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 22, 2018 to April 5, 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 5, 2018.
Apr 03 2018	Letter of March 30, 2018, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Apr 05 2018	Brief of respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration filed.
Apr 13 2018	Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the filing of a reply pursuant to Rule 15.5 received.
Apr 18 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/10/2018.
May 14 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/17/2018.
May 21 2018	Petition GRANTED.
May 21 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.
May 24 2018	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Richard Culbertson.
May 25 2018	Amy Weil, Esquire, of Atlanta, Georgia, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.
Jul 03 2018	Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix, petitioner's brief on the merits, and respondent's brief in support is extended to and including July 16, 2018. The time to file the brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below is extended to and including September 7, 2018.
Jul 03 2018	Any amicus briefs in support of the judgment below are due within 7 days after the filing of the brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.
Jul 03 2018	Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
Jul 16 2018	Joint appendix filed.
Jul 16 2018	Brief of petitioner Richard Culbertson filed.
Jul 16 2018	Brief of respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration in support of reversal and remand filed.
Jul 23 2018	Amicus brief of National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives not accepted for filing. (July 25, 2018) - To be resubmitted with required documents.)
Jul 23 2018	Brief amicus curiae of National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives in support of neither party filed.
Aug 13 2018	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration.
Aug 20 2018	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Sep 06 2018	Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.
Sep 06 2018	Lodging proposal of Court-appointed amicus curiae filed. (Distributed)
Sep 10 2018	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.
Sep 12 2018	CIRCULATED
Oct 01 2018	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
Oct 09 2018	Reply of petitioner Richard Culbertson filed. (Distributed)
Oct 09 2018	Reply of respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration filed. (Distributed)
Oct 24 2018	Lodging proposal of respondent filed. (Distributed)
Nov 07 2018	Argued. For petitioner: Daniel R. Ortiz, Charlottesville, Va. For respondent in support of reversal and remand: Anthony Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Amy L. Weil, Atlanta, Ga. (Appointed by this Court.)
Nov 15 2018	Record received from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit and the U.S.D.C. Middle district of Florida, is complete and electronic.
Jan 08 2019	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Feb 11 2019	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices address circuit split on whether a period of pretrial imprisonment can toll a term of federal supervised release – Fiona Doherty

Relist Watch – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74