Biestek v. Berryhill's guest appearances

Biestek v. Berryhill

Teleforum

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Announcements

Audio Arguendo

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

McCoy v. Louisiana

Gill v. Whitford

Mathena v. Malvo

Hernandez v. Mesa

Merck Sharp

Kisor v. Wilkie

Benisek v. Lamone

Encino Motorcars

Collins v. Virginia

Allen v. Cooper

Egbert v. Boule

Bucklew v. Precythe

Henry Schein

John Marshall

Robert Bork

OwlTail

In Biestek v. Berryhill, the Supreme Court held that agencies can rely on an expert witness’s opinion even when that witness refuses to provide the underlying data for her opinion. On one hand, the Court’s holding that an agency’s decision can be supported by “substantial evidence” without the underlying data’s disclosure in some, but not all, cases seems to recognize the inherent difficulty in stating categorical rules for a broad standard of review that applies to varied agency adjudications. On the other hand, the Supreme Court outlawed the same practice in judicial proceedings in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, a decision widely credited with ending the use of "junk science" in judicial proceedings. Does the Court’s opinion in Biestek legitimate, and even to invite, the use of “junk science” in agency proceedings? The panel will discuss the Court’s decision in Biestek and its implications for agency adjudication and judicial review.Featuring: Prof. Kent Barnett, J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of LawProf. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Biestek v. Berryhill, the Supreme Court held that agencies can rely on an expert witness’s opinion even when that witness refuses to provide the underlying data for her opinion. On one hand, the Court’s holding that an agency’s decision can be supported by “substantial evidence” without the underlying data’s disclosure in some, but not all, cases seems to recognize the inherent difficulty in stating categorical rules for a broad standard of review that applies to varied agency adjudications. On the other hand, the Supreme Court outlawed the same practice in judicial proceedings in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, a decision widely credited with ending the use of "junk science" in judicial proceedings. Does the Court’s opinion in Biestek legitimate, and even to invite, the use of “junk science” in agency proceedings? The panel will discuss the Court’s decision in Biestek and its implications for agency adjudication and judicial review. Featuring: Prof. Kent Barnett, J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Litigation Update: Biestek v. Berryhill

Social Security: Can a vocational expert's testimony constitute substantial evidence of "other work" available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability? - Argued: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 13:0:41 EDT

U.S. Supreme Court Biestek v. Berryhill, Case No. 17-1184