STREICH v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.2021-05-05No. 20-1159-cv

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for a new hearing before a properly appointed Administrative Law Judge.

Jacqueline Streich appealed the denial of her Social Security disability benefits claim, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge who decided her case lacked proper constitutional appointment. The district court rejected her challenge as untimely because she had not raised the issue during the initial administrative proceedings. However, after the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul during the appeal, which held that claimants need not exhaust administrative remedies before raising Appointments Clause challenges in federal court, the appellate court recognized that the district court had applied an incorrect legal standard.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether failure to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during administrative proceedings forfeits the right to raise it in federal court
Proper constitutional appointment of Social Security Administrative Law Judges
Exhaustion requirement for constitutional challenges in Social Security proceedings

Procedural posture

Streich appealed from a district court judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, raising a constitutional challenge to the Administrative Law Judge's appointment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Jacqueline Streich appeals from a February 6, 2020 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Richardson, M.J.) that in relevant part affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Streichs claim for disability insurance benefits. Among other arguments, Streich contended that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who heard and decided her case for benefits was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Although there is no dispute that the ALJ was not properly appointed until eight months after deciding Streichs claim for benefits, the District Court nevertheless rejected Streichs Appointments Clause challenge as untimely because Streich never raised the issue during the administrative proceeding itself. See Streich v. Berryhill, No. 3:18-CV-1977 (RAR), 2020 WL 563373, *2–3 (D. Conn. Feb. 5, 2020).

While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1352, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2021). The Court held that a claimant does not forfeit her Appointments Clause challenge by failing to raise it first before an ALJ. Id. at 1360–62. In light of Carr, we conclude, and the Commissioner agrees, that the District Court erred in requiring that Streich administratively exhaust her Appointments Clause challenge before she could raise it in federal court. We also conclude that Streich is entitled to a hearing and de novo decision before a different, properly appointed ALJ. See Lucia v. SEC, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055, 201 L.Ed.2d 464 (2018). Because we remand for a new hearing, and because there appears to have been conflicting evidence in the record relating to the merits of Streichs claim for disability insurance benefits, we decline to address Streichs other arguments concerning the merits, as to which we express no view.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and we REMAND with instructions to remand the matter to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ other than the ALJ who presided over Streichs original hearing.