Carr v. Saul

141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

When the Social Security Administration (SSA) denies a claim for disability benefits, a claimant who wishes to contest that decision in federal court must first seek a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Ps sought reconsideration of the agency’s initial determination and each received a hearing before an ALJ, and requested review by the SSA’s Appeals Council. In each case, the Appeals Council denied discretionary review. The Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC where under the Appointments Clause, only the President, “Courts of Law,” or “Heads of Departments” may appoint “Officers of the United States.” The Lucia Court determined that SEC ALJs were “Officers” rather than mere employees because they held “a continuing office established by law,” exercised “‘significant discretion’ when carrying out . . . ‘important functions,’” and often had the last word in SEC proceedings. SSA ALJs had also been selected by lower-level staff rather than appointed by the head of the agency. The SSA’s Acting Commissioner preemptively “addressed any Appointments Clause questions involving Social Security claims” by “ratifying the appointments” of all SSA ALJs and “approving those appointments as her own.” SSA issued a ruling that the Appeals Council should, in response to timely requests for Appeals Council review, vacate preratification ALJ decisions and provide a fresh review by a properly appointed adjudicator. That remedy was only available, however, to claimants who had raised an Appointments Clause challenge in either their ALJ or Appeals Council proceedings. None of the Ps had objected to the ALJs’ appointments in their administrative proceedings. Ps would receive any relief. Ps asked the Federal District Court for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed ALJ. D contended that Ps had forfeited their Appointments Clause challenges by failing to raise them before the agency. The lower courts split on whether Ps were entitled to a new hearing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.