Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Cynthia Butler sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, which ask the court to decide a case based on the existing administrative record and the parties’ written arguments.

Butler argued that the administrative law judge (ALJ) who conducted her hearing and issued the agency decision had not been properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The administrative hearing occurred on January 19, 2018, and the ALJ issued the decision on March 1, 2018. The opinion states that these events occurred before the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ratified the appointments of all Social Security ALJs on July 16, 2018.

The Commissioner’s motion argued that Butler had waived or forfeited the Appointments Clause challenge because she did not raise it during the Social Security proceedings. The Commissioner did not argue in the motion papers that Social Security ALJs were employees rather than inferior officers.

Court’s Analysis

After the motions were filed, the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul. Carr held that claimants were not required to raise Appointments Clause challenges to Social Security ALJs during the agency proceedings in order to preserve those challenges for federal-court review. The court therefore ruled that Butler’s challenge, although first raised in federal court, was timely and properly presented.

The court relied on Lucia v. SEC for the remedy. Lucia held that an adjudication affected by an appointment violation requires a new hearing before a properly appointed official and that the new hearing must be conducted by someone other than the official who originally heard and decided the case. Applying that principle, the court ordered that Butler’s case be assigned on remand to a different, properly appointed ALJ.

Because the Appointments Clause issue required remand, the court did not address Butler’s arguments that the ALJ improperly weighed medical-opinion evidence and evaluated her statements. It also did not address the Commissioner’s arguments concerning substantial evidence, the treatment of medical opinions, or the assessment of Butler’s statements. The opinion stated that the parties could raise those arguments later if Butler were again denied benefits on similar grounds.

Disposition

The court ordered that Butler’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part as to the Appointments Clause challenge. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings before a properly appointed ALJ, and the remanded case was required to be assigned to a different ALJ from the one who conducted the original hearing and issued the original decision. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in Butler’s favor directing remand.