## Facts

- Simon Nash, a Social Security Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and former ALJ-in-charge in Buffalo, New York, challenged management reforms adopted during a large SSA case backlog.
- Nash alleged that three reforms interfered with ALJs’ decisional independence: (1) a Peer Review Program evaluating ALJ decisions, (2) monthly production goals setting expected dispositions, and (3) a Quality Assurance system that monitored decision patterns, including reversal rates.
- Nash also challenged a departmental policy of “non-acquiescence,” under which the agency would not follow certain adverse decisions of federal courts other than the Supreme Court.
- The district court, after a bench trial, ruled that the challenged oversight programs were within legitimate agency supervision and did not impair ALJ decisional independence.
- The district court granted summary judgment against Nash on the non-acquiescence claim for lack of standing.
- Nash appealed pro se to the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the SSA’s peer review, production goals, and quality assurance measures unlawfully impaired ALJ decisional independence under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Social Security Act, or the Due Process Clause.
2. Whether an ALJ has Article III standing to challenge the agency’s non-acquiescence policy based on institutional objections and asserted conflicts between agency policy and circuit precedent.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held that the Peer Review Program, monthly production goals, and Quality Assurance system were permissible tools of agency supervision and did not dictate outcomes in individual cases or otherwise infringe ALJ decisional independence.
- The court held that Nash lacked standing to challenge the non-acquiescence policy because he did not show a concrete, personal injury traceable to that policy and redressable by the court.
- The court accepted the district court’s trial findings as not clearly erroneous.
- The court rejected the contention that Nash’s claims were barred by res judicata based on similar litigation by an ALJ association.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, ALJs are subordinate agency adjudicators; agencies retain authority over adjudication and may implement supervisory measures consistent with statutory structure, including authority reflected in 5 U.S.C. § 557(b).
- Agency oversight mechanisms (post-decision review, productivity expectations, and quality monitoring) are lawful when they function as management controls and do not require prejudgment, compel particular substantive results, or impose sanctions based solely on the direction of decisions.
- Allegations that quality metrics (including reversal-rate monitoring) could create pressure are insufficient absent proof that the agency used the system to dictate outcomes or to discipline ALJs for deciding cases in a particular direction.
- Article III standing requires a distinct, palpable injury fairly traceable to the challenged policy and likely to be redressed by the requested relief; generalized institutional objections to an agency’s legal position do not satisfy this requirement.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld SSA reforms aimed at improving adjudicatory efficiency and consistency, concluding they were permissible supervision that did not compromise ALJ decisional independence, and it dismissed an ALJ’s challenge to the agency’s non-acquiescence policy for lack of a concrete, individualized injury.


Nash v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989)