Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-09108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Krause directed the parties to consider a possible remand after Carr, without deciding whether benefits should be awarded.
Williams and the Commissioner of Social Security were directed to meet and address whether the case should be remanded for a new hearing; the order did not determine Williams’s eligibility for benefits.
What happened
In Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed a Supreme Court decision concerning challenges to the appointment of Social Security administrative law judges. Williams’s hearing occurred before the appointment of the administrative law judge was ratified in July 2018, and Williams had not raised an appointment challenge in federal court.
The court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. It required Williams to explain by June 1, 2021, whether Williams requested a remand, and allowed the Commissioner to respond by June 8, 2021, if necessary.
Judge Andrew E. Krause did not order a remand or decide the pending motions. The order warned that declining to request a remand at that stage might be treated as giving up the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal, while stating that such a decision would not prejudice Williams before the court or affect the timing of its decision on the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-09108
- Nelson Roman
- May 10, 2021
Background
The order discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul. The Supreme Court held that applicants for Social Security disability benefits were not required to raise a challenge to an administrative law judge’s appointment during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before raising that challenge for the first time in federal court, when the hearing or decision involved an administrative law judge whose appointment did not comply with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
Williams’s hearing was conducted before the administrative law judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The order stated that Williams had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in the federal court proceeding.
Court’s Action
To promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources, the court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner. The proposed remand would involve a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge who was different from the judge who previously heard and decided Williams’s benefits claim.
The court required Williams to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether Williams requested remand and, if so, providing supporting legal arguments. If necessary, the Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.
Effect of the Order
Judge Andrew E. Krause did not decide whether Williams was entitled to benefits, did not order a remand, and did not rule on the pending motions. The order stated that choosing not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage might constitute a waiver of that challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Williams before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.