Davis v. Saul
Consolidated with Carr v. Saul (19-1442)
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 Sonia Sotomayor on Apr 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.
Jul 29, 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2020)
Jul 29, 2020Pursuant 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, 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 31, 2020 to September 29, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Aug 25, 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 29, 2020.
Sep 29, 2020Brief of respondent Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security filed.Oct 7, 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
Oct 7, 2020Rescheduled.
Oct 14, 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
Oct 14, 2020Reply of petitioners John Davis, et al. filed. (Distributed)Nov 2, 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
Nov 9, 2020Petition 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 9, 2020Because 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 9, 2020As 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, 2020SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. VIDED.
Jan 14, 2021CIRCULATED
Jan 25, 2021Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.
Feb 1, 2021Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. (1-Box)
Mar 3, 2021Argued. For petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
Apr 22, 2021Judgment 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, 2021JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jul 26, 2021Record returned to the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. (1-Box)
Recommended Citation: Davis v. Saul, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/davis-v-saul/