Escobar v. Saul
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-09653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Escobar v. Saul, Judge Parker ordered Jeanette Escobar to say whether she wants a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
Jeanette Escobar’s Social Security case and the Social Security Administration’s handling of any new hearing ordered after a remand.
What happened
In Escobar v. Saul, Jeanette Escobar’s hearing occurred before the administrative law judge’s appointment had been ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
The order discussed a recent Supreme Court decision holding that Social Security applicants raising challenges under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause do not have to raise those challenges first with the Social Security Administration.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered Escobar to file a letter by June 18, 2021, stating whether she wanted the case sent back for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. The order warned that failing to request that remand at that stage could waive the issue in later proceedings, including an appeal.
The detailed version
- Escobar v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-09653
- Analisa Torres
- May 20, 2021
Background
Jeanette Escobar had a hearing before an administrative law judge whose appointment had not yet been ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The order addressed a challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which concerns the lawful appointment of federal officers.
Legal context
The court cited a recent Supreme Court decision holding that Social Security applicants raising Appointments Clause challenges to proceedings before an improperly appointed administrative law judge do not have to first raise those challenges during proceedings before the Social Security Administration.
What the court ordered
To promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary proceedings, the court ordered Escobar to file a letter by June 18, 2021, stating whether she wanted the case remanded—sent back—for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. The court warned that failing to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage could constitute a waiver of the issue in later proceedings, including an appeal. The opinion does not state that the court had already ordered a remand or finally resolved Escobar’s Social Security claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.