|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-773||11th Cir.||Nov 7, 2018||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
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.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.