|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1606||6th Cir.||Mar 18, 2019||May 28, 2019||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2018|
Holding: A Social Security Administration Appeals Council dismissal on timeliness grounds of a request for review after a claimant has had an administrative law judge hearing on the merits qualifies as a “final decision . . . made after a hearing” for purposes of allowing judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on May 28, 2019.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 13 2018||Application (17A1121) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 26, 2018 to May 25, 2018, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Apr 19 2018||Application (17A1121) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 25, 2018.|
|May 25 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 28, 2018)|
|May 25 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.|
|Jun 21 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 28, 2018 to July 30, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jun 22 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 30, 2018.|
|Jul 11 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 30, 2018 to September 7, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 12 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 7, 2018.|
|Sep 04 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 7, 2018 to September 21, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Sep 05 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 21, 2018.|
|Sep 21 2018||Brief of respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commisioner for Operations, Social Security Administration filed.|
|Oct 10 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.|
|Oct 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.|
|Nov 02 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 02 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.|
|Nov 05 2018||Deepak Gupta, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.|
|Dec 10 2018||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Dec 11 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 19, 2018. The time to file the brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below is extended to and including January 22, 2019.|
|Dec 19 2018||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 19 2018||Brief of petitioner Ricky Lee Smith filed.|
|Dec 19 2018||Brief of respondent in support of reversal and remand filed.|
|Dec 26 2018||Brief amicus curiae of National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the brief on the merits of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.|
|Jan 14 2019||Motion for a further extension of time to file the brief on the merits of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.|
|Jan 15 2019||Motion to further extend the time to file the brief on the merits of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below is granted, and the time is extended to and including February 4, 2019.|
|Jan 25 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 18, 2019|
|Feb 04 2019||Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.|
|Feb 11 2019||Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commisioner for Operations, Social Security Administration.|
|Feb 14 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.|
|Feb 21 2019||The record from the U.S.C..A is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of restricted documents that are electronic.|
|Feb 25 2019||Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 15 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 30 minutes for Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.|
|Feb 28 2019||Reply of petitioner Ricky Lee Smith filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 06 2019||Reply of respondent filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 18 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D. C. For respondent in support of reversal and remand: Michael R. Huston, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C.|
|May 28 2019||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jul 01 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
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
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.