Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 30, 2021

Parks v. Saul

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:20-cv-00034
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Parks v. Saul, Judge Netburn ordered the parties to discuss possible remand after a Supreme Court ruling about Social Security judge appointments.

Who this affects

Donna R. Parks and Andrew Saul, the parties to the case.

What happened

In Parks v. Saul, Donna R. Parks had a hearing before a Social Security administrative law judge whose appointment had not yet been ratified by the Acting Commissioner. The Supreme Court had recently ruled that applicants raising this type of appointment challenge did not have to raise it first with the Social Security Administration.

The court ordered the parties to meet, discuss whether the case should be sent back to the agency, and file a letter reporting their views by May 7, 2021. The court did not decide whether remand was appropriate.

Judge Sarah Netburn also extended the Commissioner’s deadline to respond to Parks’s motion for judgment until May 14, 2021. The order was a case-management order and did not resolve the underlying claim.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Parks v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-00034
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Apr. 30, 2021

Background Donna R. Parks’s hearing took place before a Social Security administrative law judge whose appointment had not been ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The order states that the Supreme Court had recently held that Social Security applicants raising challenges under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause did not need to exhaust, or first present, those challenges to the Social Security Administration before raising them in federal court.

Court’s Action The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether remand—sending the case back to the agency—was appropriate. It required them to file a letter stating their views by May 7, 2021. The court also extended the Commissioner’s deadline to respond to Parks’s motion for judgment until May 14, 2021.

Result The order did not decide whether remand was appropriate, resolve Parks’s motion for judgment, or decide the underlying Social Security dispute. Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order on April 30, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.