Smith v. Berryhill

Background

Ricky Lee Smith applied for Social Security disability benefits and was denied at the initial and reconsideration stages. He obtained a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), who denied benefits. Smith’s lawyer says he timely asked the Appeals Council for review; the agency says it never received the first letter and treated a later submission as untimely, so the Appeals Council dismissed the request. Lower courts held they lacked jurisdiction to review that dismissal, and the Government later changed its position and agreed with Smith, sending the question to the Supreme Court to resolve conflicting appeals-court decisions.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether an Appeals Council dismissal for untimeliness, after a claimant has had an ALJ hearing, counts as a “final decision … made after a hearing” and is therefore open to judicial review under the Social Security Act. The Court looked to the statute’s text, the agency’s rules, and the strong presumption in favor of reviewability. It concluded the dismissal is a final agency action tied to the ALJ hearing and is not merely a collateral or discretionary act like a petition to reopen. The Court rejected the idea that the agency should be the unreviewable judge of its own timeliness rules, while noting that courts should normally let the agency address substantive issues first and generally limit review to the procedural ruling.

Real world impact

The ruling lets Social Security disability claimants whose Appeals Council review was dismissed as untimely after an ALJ hearing seek federal court review. Courts will typically review the procedural ruling first and often send remaining questions back to the agency for further action.