Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Anh Tuyet Thai v. Los Angeles County, California, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-55326, 23-55327 · judgment February 12, 2025


Certiorari denied · October 14, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

This Court has long recognized that “to facilitate the orderly and sympathetic administration of the disability program[s] * * *, the Secretary and Congress have established an unusually protective * * * process for the review and adjudication of disputed [disability] claims.” Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104 (1984); Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986). However, for the past fifteen years, the County of Los Angeles (“County”) has sent armed police officers to search Social Security disability applicants by entering their homes through deception or coercion and thereafter issuing criminal search reports accusing the applicants of fraud or malingering, resulting in a summary denial of benefits and thus violating disability applicants’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments rights and their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). In order to vindicate the disability applicants’ rights and stop the ongoing violations, petitioner asks this Court to resolve the following questions presented:

  1. Did police officers who are employed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in a cooperative State and Federal anti-fraud program act under color of federal law, and are they immune from suits for equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when they forcibly searched Anh Thai and other disability applicants in connection with their applications for Social Security disability benefits?

  2. Are searches like those performed by the County joint federal-state criminal investigators against disability applicants, in which criminal fraud investigators coerce

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Alexandra Nga Tran Manbeck
Law Offices of Alexandra T. Manbeck

For respondent
James C. Jardin
Collins + Collins LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
24A1073

Proceedings

  1. Oct 14 2025
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Sep 24 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
  3. Sep 10 2025
    Waiver of right of respondent Los Angeles County, California, et al. to respond filed.
  4. Aug 18 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 22, 2025)
  5. May 08 2025
    Application (24A1073) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 18, 2025.
  6. May 01 2025
    Application (24A1073) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 19, 2025 to August 18, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.