Valencia v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-01780
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Valencia v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Parker ordered Valencia to say whether she wants a new hearing before a properly appointed administrative law judge.
Sandra Enid Valencia, whose hearing occurred before the administrative law judge’s appointment was ratified, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
Sandra Enid Valencia challenged proceedings before an administrative law judge whose appointment had not yet been ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The Supreme Court had recently ruled that applicants raising this type of constitutional challenge did not have to present it first to the Social Security Administration.
The court ordered Valencia to file a letter by June 18, 2021, stating whether she wanted the case sent back for a new hearing before a properly appointed administrative law judge. The order warned that not requesting a remand at that stage might amount to giving up the issue in later proceedings, including an appeal.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order on May 20, 2021. The order did not decide the underlying Social Security dispute or itself order a remand.
The detailed version
- Valencia v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-01780
- Vernon Broderick
- May 20, 2021
Background
Sandra Enid Valencia’s hearing before an administrative law judge occurred before the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ratified that judge’s appointment. The order discusses an Appointments Clause challenge, meaning a claim that the official who conducted the proceeding was not appointed in the constitutionally required manner.
The order relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that Social Security applicants raising this type of challenge did not have to raise it first before the Social Security Administration before presenting it in federal court.
Court’s Action
To promote efficiency, the court ordered Valencia to file a letter by June 18, 2021, stating whether she wanted the matter remanded—that is, sent back—for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
The court stated that failing to request a remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage might constitute a waiver in later proceedings, including appeals. The order did not itself grant or deny a remand and did not decide the underlying Social Security dispute.
Disposition
The court issued an order requiring Valencia to state her position by a specified date. It did not reach the merits of her underlying claim in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.