## Facts

- The Association of Administrative Law Judges, Inc. (AALJ) is a nonprofit whose members are ALJs employed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and assigned to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of Hearings and Appeals.
- ALJs adjudicated Social Security disability claims under Titles II and XVI through de novo hearings where claimants could present evidence, call witnesses, and appear with counsel.
- ALJ decisions were subject to review by the SSA Appeals Council, including “own-motion” review under regulatory criteria (e.g., abuse of discretion, error of law, lack of substantial evidence, or important policy issues), and the Appeals Council could affirm, modify, reverse, or remand.
- Congress enacted the Bellmon Amendment (§ 304(q) of the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980), directing SSA to review ALJ decisions awarding benefits, with particular attention to ALJs with high allowance rates.
- The Secretary implemented the Bellmon Review Program, which used statistical targeting and profiling to identify ALJs with high allowance rates and select some fully favorable ALJ decisions for Appeals Council own-motion review as “most likely to be incorrect.”
- AALJ alleged the program pressured “lenient” ALJs to deny more claims, compromised decisional independence, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Social Security Act.
- The case came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on cross-motions for summary judgment seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the program.

## Issues

1. Whether the Bellmon Review Program, as implemented, unlawfully interfered with ALJ decisional independence in violation of the APA and the Social Security Act.
2. Whether selective, statistically based Appeals Council own-motion review of favorable ALJ decisions was authorized by statute and regulation.
3. Whether the program constituted arbitrary, capricious, or abusive agency action under the APA.

## Decision

- The court upheld the Bellmon Review Program and rejected AALJ’s broad challenge.
- The court held that using profiling and focusing review on high-allowance ALJs was within the Secretary’s authority and not inconsistent with the Social Security Act on the record presented.
- The court concluded the program did not, by itself, amount to impermissible interference with ALJ decisional independence because review occurred through established Appeals Council mechanisms.
- The court found insufficient evidence that the program dictated outcomes, punished ALJs for their adjudicatory choices, or otherwise exerted unlawful coercion.
- Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the requested declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating the program was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Agency adjudication may include hierarchical supervisory review where statute and regulations authorize appellate-level correction (affirmance, modification, reversal, or remand) of ALJ decisions.
- ALJ decisional independence bars direct coercion or directives to reach particular outcomes in specific cases, but it is generally compatible with policy-oriented oversight and error correction through lawful review channels.
- The Bellmon Amendment permits SSA to concentrate review on favorable decisions and to focus attention on ALJs with comparatively high allowance rates, subject to applicable regulatory procedures for Appeals Council review.
- Under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, a targeted review program is lawful if rationally related to a legitimate statutory concern and implemented through procedurally authorized mechanisms, absent proof of punitive or outcome-controlling use.

## Conclusion

The court sustained SSA’s Bellmon Review Program, holding that selective Appeals Council own-motion review—targeting favorable decisions and high-allowance ALJs—fit within statutory and regulatory authority and, without proof of coercive application, did not violate ALJ decisional independence or the APA.


Ass'n of Admin. Law Judges, Inc. v. Heckler, 594 F. Supp. 1132 (D.D.C. 1984)