Iroakazi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

The Supreme Court held in Carr v. Saul that Social Security disability-benefit applicants whose hearings or decisions were handled by an administrative law judge appointed in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause did not have to raise that challenge first in proceedings before the Social Security Administration. They could raise it for the first time in federal court.

The opinion states that Iroakazi’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. Iroakazi had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in this federal case.

Order

In light of Carr, the court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge who was different from the judge who previously handled Iroakazi’s claim.

The court required Iroakazi to file, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages either requesting remand and providing supporting legal arguments or stating that Iroakazi did not request remand. If needed, the Commissioner could file a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.

Effect

The court warned that if Iroakazi chose not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage, that choice could waive the challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. The court also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Iroakazi before the court and would not affect the timing of its decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.

The order directed further submissions; it did not itself remand the case, resolve the Appointments Clause challenge, decide the pending motions, or rule on the underlying Social Security benefits claim.