Arnao v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
- Andrew Krause
- 7:18-cv-06801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Arnao v. Commissioner, Judge Krause directed the parties to address possible remand for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
The order directly affected Arnao and the Commissioner of Social Security by requiring them to address whether the case should be remanded for a new hearing.
What happened
In Arnao v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court noted that the plaintiff’s hearing and administrative law judge’s decision occurred before the judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018. The plaintiff had not raised a challenge to that appointment in federal court.
The court discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that Social Security applicants did not have to raise this type of appointment challenge during agency proceedings before presenting it in federal court. The parties were directed to discuss whether the case should be sent back for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
Judge Andrew E. Krause required the plaintiff to state by June 1, 2021, whether the plaintiff requested remand, and allowed the Commissioner to respond by June 8 if necessary. The order did not itself remand the case or decide the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Arnao v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · No. 7:18-cv-06801
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The plaintiff’s hearing was conducted, and the administrative law judge’s decision was issued, before the administrative law judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The opinion states that the plaintiff had not raised a challenge under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution in the federal court proceeding.
Reason for the Order
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s April 22, 2021, decision in Carr v. Saul. Carr 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 raising that challenge for the first time in federal court.
Court’s Action
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. The plaintiff was ordered to file a letter of no more than five pages by June 1, 2021, either requesting remand and providing supporting legal argument or stating that the plaintiff did not request remand. If necessary, the defendant could file a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.
The court warned that choosing not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage might constitute a waiver of the 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. The order did not itself remand the case, decide the pending motions, or resolve the underlying Social Security benefits dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.