Huling 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 administrative proceedings before presenting that challenge in federal court. The Appointments Clause is the constitutional provision governing the appointment of certain federal officers, including administrative law judges in the circumstances discussed by the court.

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

Court’s Action

In light of Carr, and to promote efficiency and judicial economy, the court directed the parties to meet and confer about whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge different from the judge who previously handled Huling’s claim.

The court ordered Huling to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether Huling requested remand and, if so, providing supporting legal arguments. If needed, the Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.

The court stated 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 Huling before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court. Chambers staff was directed to mail the order and a copy of Carr v. Saul to Huling, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.

Disposition and Classification

The order directed the parties to address possible remand; it did not itself grant or deny remand, decide the Social Security benefits claim, or resolve the pending motions. This is a procedural order because it addressed the next steps concerning a possible constitutional appointment challenge rather than deciding the underlying benefits dispute.