## Facts

- Six Social Security disability claimants were denied benefits after hearings before SSA administrative law judges (ALJs), and the SSA Appeals Council denied review.
- After the claimants’ administrative proceedings, the Supreme Court held in a separate case that certain agency ALJs are “inferior officers” whose appointments must satisfy the Appointments Clause.
- The claimants then sought judicial review in federal court, arguing they were entitled to new hearings because SSA ALJs had been improperly appointed.
- The claimants had not raised any Appointments Clause objection during their SSA proceedings.
- The Eighth and Tenth Circuits held the claimants forfeited their Appointments Clause challenges by failing to raise them before the agency.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Social Security claimants must present Appointments Clause objections to SSA ALJs to preserve them for court.

## Issues

1. Whether Social Security disability claimants forfeit Appointments Clause challenges by failing to raise those challenges during SSA administrative proceedings.
2. Whether courts may impose a judge-made issue-exhaustion requirement for structural constitutional claims in SSA’s nonadversarial adjudication system when no statute or regulation requires exhaustion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the courts of appeals erred by imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on the claimants’ Appointments Clause claims.
- Social Security disability claimants do not forfeit Appointments Clause challenges by failing to raise them before SSA ALJs.
- The Court emphasized SSA adjudications are inquisitorial rather than adversarial, weakening the usual justification for judicially created issue exhaustion.
- The Court also noted the practical limits of ALJs’ authority to remedy alleged defects in their own appointments, making such objections largely futile at the ALJ stage.

## Legal Principles

- Issue-exhaustion obligations in administrative review are typically created by statute or regulation; absent such a directive, any exhaustion requirement is a judicial choice.
- Whether to impose judge-made issue exhaustion depends on how closely the administrative proceeding resembles adversarial litigation; the justification is weaker in nonadversarial systems.
- SSA ALJ hearings are inquisitorial, with ALJs responsible for developing the record and considering arguments for and against benefits.
- Structural constitutional objections under the Appointments Clause may be raised for the first time in court in this SSA setting when no statute or regulation requires earlier presentation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, because SSA proceedings are nonadversarial and no statute or regulation mandated issue exhaustion, Social Security disability claimants may bring Appointments Clause challenges in federal court even if they did not raise those objections before the SSA ALJ.


Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021)