|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-105||8th 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 |
|Jul 29 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2020)|
|Jul 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.|
|Aug 24 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 31, 2020 to September 29, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 25 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 29, 2020.|
|Sep 29 2020||Brief of respondent Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security filed.|
|Oct 07 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.|
|Oct 07 2020||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 14 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.|
|Oct 14 2020||Reply of petitioners John Davis, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 02 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.|
|Nov 09 2020||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1442 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. 19-1422. 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 31 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. VIDED.|
|Jan 14 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 25 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Feb 01 2021||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. (1-Box)|
|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.|
Monday's decision rejecting sentence reductions for low-level crack-cocaine offenders may have been unanimous, but @ekownyankah writes that there is far more going on than the ruling's dry textual analysis might indicate. Read his incisive analysis here:
After decades, Congress reduced the racially unjust crack/cocaine disparity... raising amounts required for prison time. Why would Congress have left small time dealers to rot in prison for decades?
My thoughts on SCOTUS's ruling in Terry v. United States:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-heavy-on-text-light-on-history/
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
SCOTUS rules 9-0 that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for re-sentencing under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Here is the opinion in Terry v. United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
SCOTUS sides with the gov in 2 cases about whether certain criminal defendants are entitled to new trials / new plea hearings as a result of the court's 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States which narrowed a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing guns
In a relatively quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS takes up no new cases. But it does invite the federal government to submit a brief on the pending petition that asks the justices to take up a challenge to Harvard's affirmative action policy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
The Supreme Court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. ET followed by opinion(s?) at 10:00.
There are 21 opinions outstanding including Obamacare, LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious liberty, and student speech.
We’ll crank up the live blog at 9:25. Join us!
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 14 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Monday, June 14, as the court releases orders from the June 10 conference and one ...
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.