Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Andrew Johnson v. District of Columbia Public Schools, et al.
Paid petition · District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 25-CV-0112 · judgment April 30, 2026
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate: the model weighted this down for a self-represented petitioner.
Questions presented
-
Whether, in light of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which requires courts to exercise independent judgment on questions of law rather than defer to agency determinations, an appellate court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it applies deferential “sub stantial evidence” review—rather than de novo review— to determine whether an administrative agency complied with specific legal directives contained in a prior judi cial remand order.
-
Whether de novo review is constitutionally required when an appellate court reviews a govern ment agency’s compliance with specific legal findings contained in a prior judicial remand order, such that applying deferential review effectively nullifies the reviewing court’s prior legal determinations and renders judicial remand orders unenforceable against govern ment agencies.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Andrew Johnson
For respondent
Lucy Elizabeth Pittman
Office of the Attorney General for D.C.
Case
Subject area
Judicial Power (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Order
Order list, October 5, 2026 · Certiorari denied
Proceedings
- Oct 05 2026Petition DENIED.
- Sep 02 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2026.
- Sep 01 2026Waiver of right of respondent D.C. Public Schools, et al. to respond filed.
- Jul 06 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 21, 2026)