## Facts

- Simon Nash served as an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the Social Security Administration (SSA) and as ALJ in Charge of the Buffalo field office.
- SSA faced a large backlog of benefits appeals and adopted management measures intended to increase efficiency and uniformity in adjudication.
- Nash alleged several practices unlawfully interfered with ALJs’ decisional independence protected by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and related civil-service rules:
  - A peer review program and detailed, mandatory instructions on hearing length, opinion length, evidentiary requirements, and use of expert witnesses.
  - Production expectations described as quotas, allegedly enforced by threats to pursue incompetence charges if an ALJ did not issue a specified number of decisions.
  - A quality assurance program and monitoring of “reversal rates,” with pressure to conform to an “acceptable” national average.
  - An “employee pool” approach in which staff performed tasks Nash characterized as core adjudicative functions, including drafting decisions.
- Nash sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the challenged practices.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing, concluding Nash had not shown an injury in fact.
- Nash appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an ALJ has Article III standing to challenge agency management practices that allegedly impair decisional independence protected by the APA and related statutes and regulations.
2. Whether the alleged practices, if proven, could violate statutory provisions insulating ALJs from improper supervision, performance ratings, or outcome-based pressure.
3. Whether these claims are justiciable and appropriate for declaratory and injunctive relief rather than nonreviewable internal management matters.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held Nash alleged a sufficiently concrete injury in fact by claiming he was subject to ongoing monitoring and controls that purportedly intruded on statutory protections for ALJ independence.
- The court rejected the view that the dispute was nonjusticiable merely because the challenged conduct was framed as managerial reform.

## Legal Principles

- An agency adjudicator may have standing to challenge supervisory practices when the alleged interference implicates statutory protections designed to secure decisional independence.
- Statutory limits on directing ALJ hearing conduct and decisionmaking (including protections associated with 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 and 3105) can support a judicially cognizable claim when an ALJ alleges management has exceeded those limits.
- Statutory and regulatory exemptions limiting performance ratings for ALJs (including 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(E) and 5 C.F.R. § 930.211) may be implicated when productivity pressures function as de facto performance evaluations tied to threats of discipline.
- Efficiency measures to address backlog may be permissible, but judicial review is available to determine whether particular measures cross the line into unlawful control over adjudicative judgment or outcomes.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that an SSA ALJ plausibly alleged a concrete injury from agency practices that purportedly compromised statutory decisional independence, reversed the district court’s standing dismissal, and remanded for adjudication of the legality of the challenged management controls under governing administrative and civil-service statutes.


Nash v. Califano, 613 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1980)