Carr v. Saul

Background

Six people whose Social Security disability claims were denied had hearings before administrative law judges (ALJs) and then had their requests for Appeals Council review denied. After the Court decided Lucia, the claimants argued the ALJs were unconstitutionally appointed and asked federal courts for new hearings before properly appointed adjudicators. Some federal appeals courts said the claimants forfeited those objections by not raising them in the agency process; other circuits disagreed.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether failing to raise an Appointments Clause objection in an ALJ proceeding prevents a claimant from bringing that constitutional claim in federal court. Relying on the formal and nonadversarial features of SSA proceedings and on the fact that ALJs lack authority to resolve structural constitutional claims, the Court explained that judicially created issue-exhaustion rules are inappropriate here. The Court also noted the established futility exception to exhaustion where administrative adjudicators cannot grant the requested relief.

Real world impact

The decision means people denied disability benefits may press Appointments Clause challenges in federal court even if they did not object during their ALJ hearings, and could win new hearings before properly appointed ALJs. The ruling reverses the Eighth and Tenth Circuit judgments and sends the cases back for further proceedings; it is not a final decision on the underlying disability claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately: Justice Thomas agreed with the Court that SSA hearings are nonadversarial; Justice Breyer agreed that constitutional and futility exceptions apply.