Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)
Petitioners, whose applications for disability benefits were denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) unsuccessfully challenged their adverse determinations before an SSA administrative law judge (ALJ). The SSA Appeals Council denied discretionary review in each case. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, holding that the appointment of Securities and Exchange Commission ALJs by lower-level staff violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The SSA ALJs were also appointed by lower-level staff. The Courts of Appeals held that the petitioners could not obtain judicial review of their Appointments Clause claims because they failed to raise those challenges in their administrative proceedings.
The Supreme Court reversed. The Courts of Appeals erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on petitioners’ Appointments Clause claims. Administrative review schemes commonly require parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question. If no statute or regulation imposes an issue-exhaustion requirement, courts decide whether to require issue exhaustion based on “an analogy to the rule that appellate courts will not consider arguments not raised before trial courts.” In the context of petitioners’ Appointments Clause challenges, two considerations tip the scales against imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement: agency adjudications are generally ill-suited to address structural constitutional challenges, which usually fall outside the adjudicators’ areas of technical expertise, and the Supreme Court has consistently recognized a futility exception to exhaustion requirements. Petitioners assert purely constitutional claims about which SSA ALJs have no special expertise and for which they can provide no relief.
Courts of Appeal erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on challenges, under the Appointments Clause, to the appointments of Social Security Administration administrative law judges.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CARR et al. v. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
No. 19–1442. Argued March 3, 2021—Decided April 22, 2021[1]
Petitioners are six individuals whose applications for disability benefits were denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA). They each unsuccessfully challenged their respective adverse benefit determination in a hearing before an SSA administrative law judge (ALJ). The SSA Appeals Council denied discretionary review in each case. Thereafter, this Court decided Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. ___, which held that the appointment of Securities and Exchange Commission ALJs by lower level staff violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Because the SSA ALJs who denied petitioners’ claims were also appointed by lower level staff, petitioners argued in federal court that they were entitled to a fresh administrative review by constitutionally appointed ALJs. In each case, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners could not obtain judicial review of their Appointments Clause claims because they failed to raise those challenges in their administrative proceedings.
Held: The Courts of Appeals erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on petitioners’ Appointments Clause claims. Pp. 4–12.
(a) Administrative review schemes commonly require parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question. Such administrative issue-exhaustion requirements are typically creatures of statute or regulation. But where, as here, no statute or regulation imposes an issue-exhaustion requirement, courts decide whether to require issue exhaustion based on “an analogy to the rule that appellate courts will not consider arguments not raised before trial courts.” Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 109. “[T]he desirability of a court imposing a requirement of issue exhaustion depends on the degree to which the analogy to normal adversarial litigation applies in a particular administrative proceeding.” Ibid. In Sims, which declined to apply an issue-exhaustion requirement to SSA Appeals Council proceedings, the Court explained that “the rationale for requiring issue exhaustion is at its greatest” when “the parties are expected to develop the issues in an adversarial administrative proceeding,” but is “much weaker” when “an administrative proceeding is not adversarial.” Id., at 110. Although Sims dealt with administrative review before the SSA Appeals Council, much of the opinion’s rationale applies equally to SSA ALJ proceedings. Pp. 4–8.
(b) Even assuming that ALJ proceedings are comparatively more adversarial than Appeals Council proceedings, the question remains whether the ALJ proceedings here were adversarial enough to support the “analogy to judicial proceedings” that undergirds judicially created issue-exhaustion requirements. Sims, 530 U. S., at 112 (plurality opinion). Pp. 8–12.
(1) In the specific context of petitioners’ Appointments Clause challenges, two considerations tip the scales decidedly against imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement. First, agency adjudications are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges, which usually fall outside the adjudicators’ areas of technical expertise. See, e.g., Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 491. Second, this Court has consistently recognized a futility exception to exhaustion requirements. See, e.g., Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen, 485 U.S. 399, 405–406. Both considerations apply fully here: Petitioners assert purely constitutional claims about which SSA ALJs have no special expertise and for which they can provide no relief. United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, distinguished. Pp. 9–11.
(2) The Commissioner’s contention that petitioners cannot obtain new hearings because they did not “timely challenge” their adjudicators’ appointments presumes what the Commissioner has failed to prove: that petitioners’ challenges are, in fact, untimely. The Commissioner’s reliance on Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, and Lucia, 585 U. S. ___, is misplaced, as neither decision had occasion to opine on what would constitute a “timely” objection in an administrative review scheme like the SSA’s. Pp. 11–12.
961 F.3d 1267 and 963 F.3d 790, reversed and remanded.
Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II–A, and II–B–2, and in which Breyer, J., joined as to Parts I, II–B–1, and II–B–2. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch and Barrett, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II–A, and II–B–2, and in which Breyer, J., joined as to Parts I, II–B–1, and II–B–2. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch and Barrett, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. VIDED. |
Argued. For petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Washington, D. C. VIDED. |
Reply of petitioners John J. Davis, Thomas Hilliard, Kimberly L. Iwan, Destiny M. Thurman filed (in 20-105). (Distributed) |
Reply of petitioners Willie Earl Carr, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Record received from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit is electronically filed. |
Brief of respondent Saul, Andrew M., Commissioner of Social Security filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit. |
CIRCULATED |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 19-1442 GRANTED. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 20-105 GRANTED. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Disability Representatives filed.VIDED |
Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed. VIDED. |
Amicus brief of The New Civil Liberties Alliance & Cato Institute not accepted for filing. (January 05, 2021 - Corrected version to be submitted). |
Brief amici curiae of The New Civil Liberties Alliance & Cato Institute filed. VIDED. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, et al. filed. VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Social Security, Government Benefit Program and Administrative Law Professors and Scholars filed. VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. VIDED. |
Brief of petitioners John J. Davis, Thomas Hilliard, Kimberly L. Iwan, Destiny M. Thurman (in 20-105) filed. |
Brief of petitioners Willie Earl Carr, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Collective of Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judges in support of neither party filed. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 19-1442. |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, John J. Davis, Thomas Hilliard, Kimberly L. Iwan, Destiny M. Thurman |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners in No. 20-105. |
Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 20-105 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED. |
As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions. |
Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1442. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-1442. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.” |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020. |
Reply of petitioners Willie Earl Carr, et al. filed. |
Brief of respondent Saul, Andrew M. filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 30, 2020. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 31, 2020 to September 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 31, 2020. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 31, 2020 to August 31, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 31, 2020) |