This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (Jo Anne Barnhart), according to Petitioner (Jo Anne Barnhart), according to Petitioner (Jo Anne Barnhart), the case concerns whether the Social Security Commissioner may receive Chevron deference for interpreting disability statutes, even when the claim is adjudicated after the statutory period.
Background and question before the Court
Justice questioned whether the Commissioner of Social Security could evaluate a claim and start benefits in less than 12 months after filing.
According to Justice, whether a long‑standing, consistent agency interpretation of the disability statutes warrants Chevron deference.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Jo Anne Barnhart)
According to Petitioner (Jo Anne Barnhart), according to Petitioner (Jo Anne Barnhart), according to Petitioner (Jo Anne Barnhart), the Commissioner is entitled to Chevron deference regardless of when the claim was adjudicated.
According to Mr. Lamken, the case is a classic example of Chevron deference.
According to Government, the agency has consistently interpreted the statute in this way.
Respondent (Walton)
According to Respondent, legislative history shows that a disability must last the requisite duration and not merely be a temporary medical condition.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began before the Supreme Court at 11:06 a.m.
The case was submitted at 12:04 p.m.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 56db534f8ece5ec62a1a-r1-69c6d3d741761a9f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.