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
(petition-stage, structural)
Well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
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
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- 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)