October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1937

Does a five-month waiting period apply to disability benefits?

Cleveland Walton argues the law requires a five-month wait. The government says the statute does not mandate this delay.

Official caption
Barnhart v. Walton
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Jeffrey Lamken argued the program targets long-term disabilities.

    Lamken stated the law forces premature retirement due to severe impairment.

    Lamken emphasized the SSI program lacks a five-month waiting period.

    Lamken argued the five-month waiting period is a distinct statutory element.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on the interpretation of Social Security statutes. One side claims the text mandates a five-month waiting period. The other side argues the plain language does not require this delay. The Court must determine which statutory interpretation is correct.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to reject the five-month waiting period requirement.

Cleveland Walton wants the Court to enforce the five-month waiting period requirement.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the statute's plain language does not mandate a five-month wait.

Cleveland Walton argues the statute's plain language requires a five-month waiting period.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to address the five-month waiting period.

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to clarify the statutory language.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the timing of disability benefit eligibility. It determines when workers receive financial support after severe impairment. The outcome shapes the administration of the Social Security program.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON