Madigan v. Berryhill

Background

The plaintiff’s Social Security disability-benefits 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. The plaintiff had not raised a challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause in this federal case.

The order discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that Social Security applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during their proceedings before the Social Security Administration before presenting it in federal court.

Court’s Action

To promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary proceedings, the court directed the parties to meet and confer about whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge who had not previously handled the plaintiff’s claim.

The court ordered the plaintiff to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages either requesting remand and providing supporting legal arguments 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.

Effect of the Order

Judge Andrew E. Krause warned that declining to request remand at that stage might waive the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal. The court also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice the plaintiff before that court or change the timing of its decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court. The order itself did not grant or deny remand and did not decide the pending motions.