Instead, when the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision as embodied in the contract.The Court’s decision is available here.Culbertson v. Berryhill, No. 17-773: Attorneys who represent Social Security claimants before the Social Security Administration and a reviewing court have their fees regulated by the Social Security Act. There are certain fee caps applicable under 42 U.S.C. §406(a) that apply to representation in administrative proceedings. Section 406(b), in turn, which is titled “Fees for representation before court,” limits fees to no more than 25% of past-due benefits.

ations Immunities Act – which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b) – confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1602-11.Royal v. Murphy, No. 17-1107: Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. §1151(a).Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275: Does the Atomic Energy Act preempt a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings)?Culbertson v. Berryhill, No. 17-773: Whether attorney fees for Social Security benefits claims subject to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)’s 25-percent cap include, as the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits hold, only fees for representation in court or, as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits hold, also fees for representation before the agency.

Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 2012 DJDAR 15223 (2012), the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit decided a unique attorney fee case arising out of a dispute relating to the claimant’s eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Social Security Act (SSA) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 42 U.S.C. Section406(b) and 28 U.S.C. Section2412, allow for an award of reasonable attorney fees for cases where a claimant successfully challenges the denial of Social Security benefits.However, Congress enacted a savings clause to prevent attorneys from receiving fees twice “for the same work.”The Parrish case required the court to analyze whether the fee claim at issue therein sought double recovery “for the same work.”