No. 25-164
Mitzi Baker v. Social Security Administration
Response Waived
Tags: employment-law individual-right-action retaliatory-intent sarbanes-oxley statutory-interpretation whistleblower-protection
Key Terms:
Arbitration
Arbitration
Latest Conference:
2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether federal whistleblowers have to prove 'retaliatory intent' in an Individual Right to Action (IRA) under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Congress has enacted a statute to protect whistle blowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514(a). This Court has held that an employee does not have to prove, “retaliatory intent, ” in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. 23, 28 (2024). The Question Presented is: Whether federal whistleblowers have to prove “retaliatory intent ” in an Individual Right to Action, (IRA), under the Whistleblower Protection Enhance ment Act (WPEA).
Docket Entries
2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-09-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-09-02
Waiver of right of respondent Social Security Administration to respond filed.
2025-08-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 10, 2025)
2025-06-04
Application (24A1187) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 7, 2025.
2025-05-28
Application (24A1187) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 8, 2025 to August 7, 2025, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Social Security Administration
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent