Search for: "Rounds v. Social Security Administration"
Results 1 - 20
of 278
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2018, 4:09 am
Berryhill, in which the justices will consider social-security-benefits claimants’ ability to scrutinize the data on which benefits denials are based. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 3:56 am
The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:23 am
North Carolina, which asks whether a ban on social media use by sex offenders violates the First Amendment. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 4:03 am
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that on Friday “the administration asked the justices to allow it to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the ‘remain in Mexico’ policy, which allows the Department of Homeland Security to return immigrants to Mexico while they wait for deportation proceedings. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 3:54 am
The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 3:57 am
Berryhill, in which the justices considered social security benefits claimants’ ability to scrutinize the data on which benefits denials are based. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 4:09 am
North Carolina, which asks whether a ban on social media use by sex offenders violates the First Amendment; McLane v. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 3:40 am
Berryhill, in which the court held that an administrative judge in a social security disability benefits case can rely on testimony by a vocational expert that an applicant can do “other work,” even if the expert does not provide the data she used to form her opinion. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 4:16 am
The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 3:59 am
Berryhill, the court held 6-3 that an administrative judge in a social security disability benefits case can rely on testimony by a vocational expert that an applicant can do “other work,” even if the expert does not provide the data she used to form her opinion. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 3:57 am
Berryhill,” holding that an administrative judge in a social security disability benefits case can rely on testimony by a vocational expert that applicant can do “other work,” even if the expert does not provide the data she used to form her opinion, “as an invitation to agencies to make important decisions based on junk science, i.e., opinions of putative experts that are not supported by reliable data or analysis. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 3:43 am
The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 3:47 am
” Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
29 May 2018, 4:13 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, which asks whether SEC administrative law judges are “officers of the United States” within the meaning of the appointments clause, and Lagos v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 4:04 am
The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 4:16 am
Berryhill, that a 25 percent cap in the Social Security Act on the award of attorney’s fees applies only to fees for representing a client in court, and not to aggregate fees for both court representation and representation before the agency. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 3:56 am
Garcia that federal immigration law does not preempt a state prosecution for identity theft for using someone else’s Social Security number to obtain employment. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 7:50 am
Those deemed permanently disabled by the Social Security Administration (SSA) are entitled to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, assuming they worked for a time prior to the onset of their disability. [read post]
29 May 2019, 7:15 am
Berryhill, the court unanimously held that 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. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 4:29 am
In Matal v. [read post]
