Elizabeth A.W. v. Kijakazi
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-01733
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Elizabeth A.W. v. Kijakazi, Judge Tunheim granted relief from judgment, vacated it, and reopened the case for a constitutional appointment issue.
Elizabeth A.W. and the Social Security Commissioner; the judgment against Elizabeth A.W. was vacated, and the case was reopened for limited consideration of the administrative law judge’s appointment.
What happened
In Elizabeth A.W. v. Kijakazi, Elizabeth A.W. challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of her disability benefits. The court had previously granted the Commissioner’s request for summary judgment after reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Elizabeth A.W. later asked the court to reopen the judgment so it could consider whether the administrative law judge who decided her case was properly appointed. She argued that the acting Commissioner who approved the judge’s appointment may not have had authority to do so under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
The court found that relief was not justified by mistake or excusable neglect, but found exceptional circumstances supporting relief for another reason. Judge Tunheim granted the motion, vacated the earlier judgment, and reopened and sent the case to the magistrate judge to consider only the appointment issue; the court did not decide whether the appointment was constitutional.
The detailed version
- Elizabeth A.W. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-01733
- John Tunheim
- July 29, 2022
Background
Elizabeth A.W. brought the case seeking judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her request for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the Social Security Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
In objections to that recommendation, Elizabeth A.W. raised a new constitutional argument: that the administrative law judge who decided her claim had not been properly appointed and therefore lacked authority to issue the decision. The court overruled the objection but invited her to raise the issue through a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows a court to provide relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances.
The Rule 60 Motion
Elizabeth A.W. sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1), which covers mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief. She also asked the court to reopen the record for the limited purpose of considering the administrative law judge’s appointment.
The appointment issue concerned Nancy Berryhill’s ratification of Social Security administrative law judge appointments. The opinion states that Berryhill became acting Commissioner on January 20, 2017, and that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act generally limited her service to 210 days unless a nomination exception applied. Andrew M. Saul was nominated on April 17, 2018, and confirmed on June 17, 2019. The parties disputed whether the Act allowed Berryhill to resume acting as Commissioner after the initial 210-day period and therefore whether her ratification of the appointments was valid.
Court’s Analysis
The court declined to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(1). It concluded that counsel’s failure to raise the appointment argument earlier did not amount to excusable mistake or neglect. The court noted that the issue had been litigated in another District of Minnesota proceeding before the magistrate judge issued the recommendation in this case, so the argument could have been presented earlier.
The court granted relief under Rule 60(b)(6). It found exceptional circumstances based on the novelty of the issue, recent developments concerning challenges to administrative law judge appointments, the fact that Elizabeth A.W. had raised the issue before judgment became final, and the lack of a full opportunity for both parties to litigate it. The court also considered the potential significance of the issue because, if the administrative law judge was not properly appointed, a new hearing could be required.
Disposition
The court granted Elizabeth A.W.’s motion for relief from judgment, vacated the amended judgment, reopened the case, and remanded it to the magistrate judge. The remand was limited to considering whether the administrative law judge’s decision should be vacated and remanded because the judge was not properly appointed under the Constitution.
The court expressly took no position on whether the administrative law judge was constitutionally appointed. It therefore did not decide the appointment question or the underlying entitlement to disability benefits in this order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.