Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:19-cv-04041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. Commissioner, Judge Krause ordered the parties to consider remanding the Social Security case for a new hearing before a properly appointed judge.
Perez and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order also concerns the administrative law judge who previously conducted Perez’s hearing and issued the decision.
What happened
In Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court noted that the Supreme Court had held that some Social Security applicants could raise challenges to an administrative law judge’s appointment in federal court without first raising them before the agency. Perez’s hearing and decision occurred before the judge’s appointment was ratified, but Perez had not raised that challenge in this case.
The court directed the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. Perez had to tell the court by June 1, 2021, whether Perez requested a remand, and the Commissioner could respond by June 8 if needed.
Judge Krause did not decide whether to remand the case or resolve the pending motions. He warned that declining to request remand at that stage might waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal, while stating that declining remand would not otherwise harm Perez before that court or change the timing of its decision on the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-04041
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The order followed 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 an Appointments Clause challenge—the argument that an administrative law judge was not appointed in the manner required by the Constitution—during their agency proceedings before raising it in federal court.
Perez’s hearing was conducted, and the administrative law judge’s decision was issued, before that judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The order states that Perez had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in the federal court proceeding.
Court’s Action
To promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary proceedings, the court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner. A remand would send the case back for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
The court ordered Perez to file, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether Perez requested remand and, if so, providing legal arguments supporting that request. The Commissioner could file a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021, if necessary.
Effect of the Order
The court did not itself order a remand, decide the Appointments Clause issue, resolve Perez’s benefits claim, or rule on the pending motions. It stated that choosing not to request remand at that stage might waive the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. The court also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Perez before that court or affect the timing of its decision on the pending motions. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.