NOSSCR and its members have written amicus briefs and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as:
Carr and Davis v. Saul, No. 19-1442, decided on April 22, 2021. In a 9 – 0 decision the Court holds that there is no issue-exhaustion requirement for Appointments Clause claims. Listen to the oral argument here.
Kisor v. Wilkie, decided on June 26, 2019, holding that the Court’s decisions in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), which “direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation,” are not overruled.
Smith v. Berryhill, decided on May 28, 2019, holding that the Appeals Council’s dismissal of an untimely request for review is a “final decision” subject to federal-court review under 42 USC § 405(g). Notably, the Supreme Court’s opinion cites NOSSCR’s amicus brief.
Biestek v. Berryhill, decided on April 1, 2019, held that a “vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as ‘substantial evidence.'”
Culbertson v. Berryhill, which was argued on November 7, 2018, held that 42 U.S.C. § “406(b)(1)(A)’s 25% cap applies only to fees for court representation and not to the aggregate fees awarded under §§ 406(a) [for administrative representation] and (b) [for court representation].”
Lucia v. SEC, (2018) holding that administrative law judges (ALJs) appointed within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must be done in a way that aligns with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Astrue v. Capato, 132 S.Ct. 2021 (2012), holding that a posthumously conceived child who can inherit under the laws of intestacy of the relevant state can receive Social Security survivor’s benefits.
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), involving the issue of whether the EAJA fee belongs to the plaintiff or the attorney.
Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008), holding that EAJA fees for paralegal services should be paid at “prevailing market rates” rather than considered an “other expense.”
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 US 789 (2002), involving the calculation of attorneys’ fees for representation in federal court.
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000), holding that an issue not raised at the Appeals Council level is not waived in federal court.