SCOTUS case on expert testimony sees Gorsuch and Ginsburg on the same side
The Supreme Court and its membership are often covered and written about along ideological divides in today’s polarized age. But not all cases are decided by a 5-4 split. In fact, most cases are not, and in many cases, Supreme Court justices align with one another in ways that have nothing to do with ideological differences.
One recent example of that occurred in a case which focused on whether experts must always provide data that supports their testimony during administrative hearings. Earlier this month, in Biestek v. Berryhill, the court ruled that reviewing courts could uphold federal agency decisions even when experts withhold requested data.
Justice Kagan, writing for a 6-3 majority, argued that a blanket rule against experts refusing to reveal data used to support their conclusions would be too broad. She held that reviewing courts should adopt a case-by-case approach. Her opinion did not support rejecting expert testimony in all cases where the agency expert refuses to divulge the underlying data.
A dissenting opinion, written by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Justice Ginsburg, argued that agency experts should provide support for their allegations when asked. It stated, “The principle that the government must support its allegations with substantial evidence, not conclusions and secret evidence, guards against arbitrary executive decisionmaking [....] Without it, people like Mr. Biestek are left to the mercy of a bureaucrat’s caprice.”
The case involved Michael Biestek, who stopped working in 2005 due to degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. He appeared before an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to determine what work he could perform given his disabilities. A vocational expert working for the SSA testified that there were hundreds of thousands of jobs available for someone like him, but the ALJ did not require the expert to share the surveys she used to make her assessment, even when Biestek’s lawyer asked to see them.
Based on the expert testimony in Biestek’s case, the ALJ rejected part of his disability application. Biestek challenged this partial denial of benefits, saying that the expert’s refusal to share her data meant that her testimony fell short of the SSA’s substantial evidence standard. A district court sided with the SSA, and the 9th Circuit agreed, saying that the ALJ had not erred in not requiring the vocational expert to produce the data. Justice Kagan’s majority opinion affirmed that ruling
Justice Sotomayor also wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the SSA had the burden of proof to show that Biestek had work opportunities.
Click the link below to read the court’s opinion and learn more about the case.
|
