Samboy Feliz v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:19-cv-04226
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Samboy Feliz v. Commissioner, Judge Krause directed the parties to consider remanding the Social Security case for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed judge.
Samboy Feliz and the Commissioner of Social Security. The order required Feliz to state whether he requested a remand and allowed the Commissioner to respond if necessary.
What happened
In Samboy Feliz v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that Social Security applicants did not have to raise certain challenges to an administrative law judge’s appointment during agency proceedings. Feliz’s hearing and decision occurred before the judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018, and Feliz had not yet raised that challenge in federal court.
The court directed the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. Feliz had to tell the court by June 1, 2021, whether he requested a remand and could include supporting legal arguments. The Commissioner could respond by June 8 if necessary.
Judge Andrew E. Krause did not decide whether to remand the case or resolve the pending motions. He warned that declining to request a remand on the appointment issue could waive that challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal, while stating that declining the remand request would not otherwise harm Feliz before the court or change the timing of its decision on the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Samboy Feliz v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-04226
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The court discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul. That decision held that applicants for Social Security disability benefits were not required to raise a challenge to an administrative law judge’s appointment under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before raising the challenge in federal court.
Feliz’s administrative hearing was conducted, and the administrative law judge issued a decision, before that judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The opinion states that Feliz had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in this federal case.
Court’s action
To promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary proceedings, 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 court required Feliz to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether he requested a remand and, if so, providing supporting legal arguments. If necessary, the Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.
The court stated that if Feliz chose not to request a remand based on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage, that choice might waive the issue in later proceedings, including appeals. The court also stated that declining to request a remand would not prejudice Feliz 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 order directed the parties to address the possible remand; it did not itself remand the case, decide the Appointments Clause challenge, or resolve the pending motions. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered the order on May 10, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.