Carr v. Saul

In Carr v. Saul, six individuals whose applications for Social Security disability benefits were denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) sought judicial review. After the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC held that SEC administrative law judges (ALJs) were unconstitutionally appointed, the petitioners argued for the first time in federal court that the SSA ALJs who heard their cases were also improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause. The lower courts held that the petitioners had forfeited this challenge by failing to raise it during their administrative proceedings. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to raise Appointments Clause challenges at the agency level in order to preserve them for judicial review.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Tenth and Eighth Circuits and remanded the cases, holding 9-0 that the Courts of Appeals erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on the petitioners' Appointments Clause claims. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.

Whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings.

The decision provides procedural relief for Social Security disability claimants, allowing them to raise structural constitutional challenges to the appointment of SSA ALJs for the first time in federal court. It clarifies the limited applicability of judicially created issue-exhaustion requirements in informal, non-adversarial agency proceedings, potentially affecting a broad swath of future SSA claimants and general litigation strategy in administrative law.