(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated a restitution order in a case where a woman stole veterans benefit payments that the government had mistakenly continued to send to her deceased mother. The defendant, who pleaded guilty to theft of government property, argued that restitution should be limited to monies stolen within the statute of limitations. The Second Circuit agreed with her, and therefore vacated in part the district court's restitution order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an administrative ruling that terminated the Supplemental Security Income benefits of an individual who had received them since childhood for an intellectual disorder. The plaintiff disputed the medical evidence that the Social Security Administration relied on in concluding that he was no longer disabled after he turned age 18. Finding merit in his arguments, the First Circuit held that the record was insufficient to conclude he was no longer disabled.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a veteran's surviving spouse who had litigated over certain benefits was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. The spouse of a deceased World War II veteran argued that she had prevailed on her benefit claims and thus was entitled to recover her attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Federal Circuit held that she had not obtained a sufficiently successful result to qualify as a prevailing party for purposes of the attorney fee statute.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit brought by a family receiving governmental housing assistance seeking to enjoin their landlord from evicting them. The landlord argued that he was permitted to evict a family that received enhanced vouchers from the federal government once their lease expired. Rejecting the landlord's position, the Third Circuit held en banc that enhanced voucher holders may not be evicted absent good cause, even at the end of a lease term. The panel reversed summary judgment for the landlord and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration was justified in imposing an assessment and penalty on a recipient of disability benefits who failed to report work activity. The benefit recipient disputed that his failure to report earnings was material. While rejecting his legal challenge, the Second Circuit held that the agency lacked substantial evidence to support the amounts of the assessment and penalty, and therefore vacated and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that an individual who applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income was not entitled to them because he was not disabled by bipolar disorder and alcohol addiction.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Declined to hear a challenge to Treasury Offset Program regulations. A law firm ended up with nothing in legal fees because the government administratively offset fees awarded to its Social Security recipient clients under the Equal Access to Justice Act against the clients' various debts to the government. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the offset matter was better suited for a separate action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the pertinent regulations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a claimant seeking Social Security disability benefits had no absolute right to pose questions to a government-employed medical consultant who reviewed his medical file and assessed his physical limitations. Instead, the right to such questioning depends on a case-by-case assessment of the need for cross-examination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of Social Security disability benefits to a man with a back injury, rejecting his contention that the ALJ improperly discounted his treating physician's opinion and discredited his own testimony. Affirmed the district court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Amended an opinion filed on July 26, 2018 for a case which affirmed the defendant's conviction for mail and wire fraud, but vacated a custodial sentence and restitution with remand for further proceedings. The sentence was vacated because the record did not support the conclusion that the defendant exercised sufficient control over a co-conspirator. Restitution was vacated because the district court's ruling was internally inconsistent in ordering immediate payment and payments over time in the same order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of police officer having qualified immunity. Plaintiff alleged that police officer violated her Fourth Amendment rights when he entered her home without a warrant and under a false pretense to investigate fraud related to social security benefits. The Ninth Circuit held that the officer had qualified immunity with respect to a civil or administrative investigation.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the prison sentence of a defendant who pleaded guilty to wire fraud for defrauding the Veterans Administration regarding the extent of his service‐related injuries.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a benefit applicant's claim that he was entitled to Social Security disability based on a degenerative back condition. Held that the administrative law judge failed to support her decision to discount the treating neurosurgeon's opinion. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees following the settlement of litigation challenging California's attempt to reduce the rate of Medi-Cal reimbursement for healthcare providers by 10 percent. Remanded for further proceedings on the attorney fee request.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld a federal agency's decision that a former coal miner was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His former employer, a coal company, had challenged the benefits award.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration committed an error in denying disability benefits to a former hair stylist suffering from a host of medical problems, including degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia. The ALJ should have acquired a medical expert to review a consequential MRI report. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Social Security Act's 25 percent cap on attorney fees applies only to fees for court representation. The lower court erroneously applied the cap to the aggregate fees awarded for representation before both the agency and the court. Justice Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion, which resolved a circuit split regarding the fees that attorneys may charge Social Security claimants for representation. The decision relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the State of Texas should not have been enjoined from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood facilities. Concluded that the district court applied an incorrect standard of review, in this case involving the facilities' alleged noncompliance with accepted medical and ethical standards. Vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration erred in denying an individual's disability insurance benefits application. Reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a man's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with whether he could perform his former job as a school bus monitor. Vacated the district court's judgment and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a woman's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue related to whether her bipolar disorder and other conditions limited her concentration, persistence and pace. Vacated and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a university-affiliated medical practice must return $8 million to the federal agency that administers Medicare. The medical practice's test of a new care management model (a Medicare demonstration project) did not achieve the expected cost savings. Upheld an administrative order.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a Social Security disability benefits case, addressed the effect of a vocational expert's refusal to share privately collected data. The applicant's counsel wanted to see data about the labor market that the expert had relied upon in estimating the number of jobs available in the economy for someone with the applicant's characteristics. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, despite the expert's refusal to turn over this private data, her testimony could still be considered "substantial evidence" in federal court. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the Social Security Administration's decision that an applicant was not entitled to disability insurance benefits because she was not disabled. Affirmed the district court's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld a decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to revoke two physicians' Medicare privileges for billing irregularities. They allegedly submitted Medicare claims for services provided on dates that they were out of the country.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that a disabled child was not entitled to retroactive social security disability payments for the first year of his life, before his mother applied for assistance. Also held that social security laws may constitutionally bar benefits before application.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the denial of a man's application for unemployment insurance benefits. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a civilly committed sexually violent predator could be required to pay for GPS monitoring or else face criminal prosecution, even though his sole income was Social Security. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling in a case involving a now-repealed Texas law.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a lawsuit brought by several employees of a hospice care provider alleging that their employer had billed Medicare improperly. Reversed the dismissal of their claims under the False Claims Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The applicant contended, among other things, that the ALJ should not have allowed him to proceed pro se at the hearing.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. Plaintiff received over-payment of Social Security disability payments and the SSA sought to recoup the over-payment. Plaintiff claimed that the SSA collected the over-payment before considering plaintiff's waiver request. Plaintiff also filed for bankruptcy and lodged an adversarial proceeding against the SSA which the bankruptcy court dismissed. The issue for the Fifth circuit was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims. The Fifth circuit ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction and remanded to the bankruptcy court.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of administrative law, held that where the Social Security Administration Appeals Council has dismissed a request for review as untimely after a claimant has obtained a hearing from an ALJ on the merits, that dismissal qualifies as a final administrative decision so as to allow judicial review. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a benefit claimant's challenge to a denial of Social Security disability benefits. She contended that the ALJ should have given more weight to the opinion of her treating physician. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically -- and retroactively -- reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. Concluded that the new policy must be vacated. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the 7-1 Court (Justice Kavanaugh did not participate).

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services improperly calculated two Mississippi hospitals' Medicare reimbursements, specifically, so-called Disproportionate Share Hospital payments. Reversed the decision below and remanded to the agency.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a hospital waited too long to file an administrative appeal challenging a reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements. Affirmed that the filing was untimely.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued medical providers for birth injuries that were paid for through Medi-Cal. The Department of Health Care Services put a lien on the monies recovered from the medical providers. Plaintiff sought to remove lien. Court held that Medi-Cal was entitled to repayment and upheld the lien.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a retired teacher, sought relief to prevent Defendant from reducing retirement benefits and to restore monies wrongfully withheld. The trial court held that Defendant was time-barred to reduce benefits and collect over payment, thus concluding that continuous accrual theory did not apply. Appeals court held the continuous accrual theory did apply, but Defendant was time barred as to over payments made more than three years before the action was filed and may adjust future monthly payments to recoup those prior over payments.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissed claims by a group of chartered schools complaining about school funding practices but the case was vacated and remanded for dismissal because they lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims in the first instance.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The denial by an administrative law judge of an individual's application for disability benefits based on mental health impairments and its subsequent affirmation by the district court were vacated because the ALJ didn't adequately account for the person's difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace in the workplace.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful denial of unemployment benefits. On appeal, Plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits. On this, Plaintiff's third appeal over this controversy, the appeals court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly limited the scope of the fees.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The removal of nine trees on a family farm in Indiana did not convert a family farm from wetlands into croplands, rendering it ineligible for USDA benefits that would have otherwise been available.