Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

The Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul held that Social Security disability-benefit applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during their administrative proceedings before presenting it in federal court. An Appointments Clause challenge argues that an official was not appointed in the constitutionally required manner.

Thomas’s hearing before an administrative law judge and the judge’s decision occurred before that judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The opinion states that Thomas had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in the federal case.

Order

The court directed Thomas and the Commissioner to meet and discuss whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge different from the one who previously heard and decided Thomas’s benefits claim. Thomas was required to file, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages either requesting remand and explaining the legal basis or stating that Thomas did not request remand. The Commissioner could file a response by June 8, 2021, if necessary.

The court warned that choosing not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage might waive the challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Thomas before the court or affect the timing of a decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court. The order did not itself grant or deny remand.