Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:17-cv-04100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Butler v. Commissioner, Judge Krause ordered the parties to consider whether Butler should receive a new Social Security hearing before a constitutionally appointed judge.
The plaintiff, Butler, and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order concerns whether Butler’s Social Security case should be remanded for a new hearing before a different administrative law judge.
What happened
In Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court noted that the plaintiff’s hearing and decision before an administrative law judge occurred before that judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018. The court discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that Social Security applicants could raise appointment challenges for the first time in federal court.
The court directed the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Social Security Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. The plaintiff had to tell the court by June 1, 2021, whether a remand was requested, and the Commissioner could respond by June 8, 2021.
Judge Andrew E. Krause issued this case-management order but did not order a remand or decide the pending motions. The order warned that declining to request a remand at that stage might waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal.
The detailed version
- Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:17-cv-04100
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The Supreme Court held in Carr v. Saul that Social Security disability-benefit applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during their administrative proceedings before raising it in federal court. The challenge concerns whether the administrative law judge who handled the claimant’s hearing and issued the decision was appointed in accordance with the Constitution.
The court stated that Butler’s hearing and administrative decision occurred before the administrative law judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. Butler had not yet raised an Appointments Clause challenge in the federal case.
Court’s Order
To promote efficiency and judicial economy, 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 different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. Butler was required to submit a letter of no more than five pages by June 1, 2021, either requesting remand and providing supporting legal arguments or stating that Butler did not request remand. The Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021, if necessary.
The court stated that declining to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage might waive the challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Butler before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.
Disposition
The opinion issued directions for further letters and party discussions. It did not itself order a remand, decide the Appointments Clause challenge, or resolve the pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.