Blackman v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-03200
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Blackman v. Commissioner, Judge Krause ordered the parties to address possible remand after Carr because the ALJ’s appointment was challenged.
Blackman and the Commissioner of Social Security, particularly regarding whether Blackman would seek a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
What happened
Blackman v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns a Social Security disability-benefits case in which the hearing and decision occurred before the administrative law judge’s appointment was ratified. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul later held that claimants did not have to raise this type of constitutional appointment challenge during the agency proceedings first.
The court noted that Blackman had not yet raised an appointment challenge in federal court. It directed the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge.
The order did not decide whether to remand the case. Judge Andrew E. Krause required Blackman to state whether remand was requested and allowed the Commissioner to respond; it also warned that declining remand at that stage might waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal.
The detailed version
- Blackman v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-03200
- Philip Halpern
- May 10, 2021
Background
Blackman’s Social Security disability-benefits 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 Supreme Court held in Carr v. Saul that Social Security disability-benefits applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before raising that challenge in federal court. The Appointments Clause is the constitutional provision governing the appointment of certain federal officers.
The order states that Blackman had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in this federal case as of the date of the order.
Court’s Action
In light of Carr, 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. Blackman was ordered to file, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether remand was requested and, if so, providing supporting legal arguments. The Commissioner could file a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021, if necessary.
The court warned that if Blackman chose not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage, that choice might amount to waiver of the challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. The order also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Blackman 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 possible remand; it did not itself remand the case, decide the Appointments Clause issue, or rule on the pending motions. Judge Andrew E. Krause issued the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.