Wooden v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-06710
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wooden v. Commissioner, Judge Netburn ordered the parties to discuss and report on a possible stay pending Supreme Court review.
The order affects Anthony Wooden and the Commissioner of Social Security by requiring them to discuss a possible pause in Wooden’s case and report their position to the court.
What happened
Wooden v. Commissioner of Social Security is a Social Security case involving a challenge related to the administrative process for disability benefits.
The Supreme Court had agreed to decide whether Social Security claimants must raise challenges to administrative judges’ appointments before those judges as a condition of later court review. The order did not decide that issue or impose a stay.
Judge Sarah Netburn directed the parties to meet and discuss whether they agreed to pause the case, then file a joint letter explaining their position by December 14, 2020.
The detailed version
- Wooden v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-06710
- Sarah Netburn
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
The order concerns Anthony Wooden’s case against the Commissioner of Social Security. It refers to a legal issue involving challenges under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause—the provision governing the appointment of certain federal officials. The issue was whether people seeking Social Security disability benefits must raise an Appointments Clause challenge before the Administrative Law Judge as a condition of obtaining judicial review.
Supreme Court proceedings
The order states that on November 9, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to review that issue in two cases, Carr v. Saul and Davis v. Saul. The Supreme Court consolidated those cases for review.
Order
Judge Sarah Netburn directed the parties in Wooden to meet and discuss whether they agreed to a stay, meaning a pause, while the Supreme Court considered the issue. She ordered the parties to file a joint letter by December 14, 2020, describing whether they agreed to such a stay. The order did not itself grant or deny a stay and did not decide the Appointments Clause question.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.