Bolden v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-08349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bolden v. Commissioner, Judge Krause ordered briefing on possible remand for a new hearing before a properly appointed administrative law judge.
Bolden and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order also concerns whether Bolden will receive a new hearing before a different administrative law judge.
What happened
In Bolden v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed a potential challenge to the appointment of the administrative law judge who handled Bolden’s benefits case. The judge’s hearing and decision occurred before the Social Security Administration ratified that judge’s appointment in July 2018.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, the parties were not required to raise an appointment challenge within the Social Security Administration before raising it in federal court. Bolden had not yet raised such a challenge in this case.
Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. Bolden had to submit a letter by June 1, 2021, and the Commissioner could respond by June 8, 2021; the order itself did not decide whether remand would occur.
The detailed version
- Bolden v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:18-cv-08349
- Kenneth Karas
- May 10, 2021
Background
The plaintiff’s hearing before an administrative law judge and the resulting decision occurred before the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ratified that administrative law judge’s appointment in July 2018. The plaintiff had not raised a challenge under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution in the federal case.
Effect of Carr v. Saul
The court explained that, in Carr v. Saul, the Supreme Court held that applicants for Social Security disability benefits were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before presenting it for the first time in federal court. The court considered that decision relevant because the plaintiff’s hearing and administrative decision preceded the appointment ratification.
Order
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 different administrative law judge whose appointment complied with the Constitution. The plaintiff was ordered to file, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether the plaintiff requested remand and, if so, providing legal support. The defendant could file a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021, if necessary.
The court warned that declining to request remand at that stage might constitute a waiver of the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice the plaintiff before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court. This order directed further submissions; it did not itself order remand or decide the pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.