No. 24-7366
Damien Deshawn Pugh v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: administrative-law disability-benefits due-process medical-evidence social-security supplemental-security-income
Latest Conference:
2026-01-09
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Why does social security applicants have to endure unnecessary subjection of politics and opinions that never derive from the medical facts presented for an applicants case?
42 US. Code § 1382 is part of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program that was implemented to safeguard retired and tenured Us federal, state and county employees, is it enough?
The United States is divided into the bipartisan parties of Republic and Democratic. Are we protected fro either party 's reform policies?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether social security applicants are unfairly subjected to political opinions that deviate from medical facts in disability determinations
Docket Entries
2026-01-12
Rehearing DENIED.
2025-12-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-10-15
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-01
Waiver of Bisignano, Comm'r, Social Sec. of right to respond submitted.
2025-07-01
Waiver of right of respondent Bisignano, Comm'r, Social Sec. to respond filed.
2025-06-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 7, 2025)
Attorneys
Bisignano, Comm'r, Social Sec.
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
Moez Mansoor Kaba — Hueston Hennigan LLP, Respondent
Damien D. Pugh
Damien D. Deshawn Pugh — Petitioner