## Facts

- James W. Stanley, Jr., an attorney, represented a Social Security disability claimant, Joyce Martin, under a contingency-fee agreement for “25% of all past-due benefits or $4,000, whichever was less,” upon a favorable decision.
- After Martin received past-due benefits, the Social Security Administration (SSA) authorized an attorney fee lower than the amount Stanley collected under the fee agreement.
- An SSA administrative law judge (ALJ) found Stanley (1) misled his client regarding benefits and rights, (2) collected and retained a fee exceeding the SSA-authorized amount, and (3) made false or misleading statements to the SSA regarding the fee dispute.
- The ALJ suspended Stanley from representing claimants before the SSA for five years.
- The SSA Appeals Council affirmed the suspension.
- Stanley filed suit in federal district court seeking review, asserting jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and alternatively under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and also raised due process-related challenges.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding § 405(g) does not permit attorneys to obtain judicial review of SSA disciplinary decisions.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes judicial review of an SSA disciplinary suspension imposed on an attorney representative.
2. Whether the APA independently supplies a basis for federal jurisdiction to review SSA attorney-discipline decisions when § 405(g) does not.
3. Whether the attorney alleged a colorable constitutional claim sufficient to permit judicial review despite limits on statutory review.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Section 405(g) does not provide a right of judicial review to attorneys challenging SSA disciplinary sanctions.
- The APA does not independently confer jurisdiction or permit circumvention of the Social Security Act’s limits on judicial review.
- The asserted due process, vagueness, notice, and property-interest arguments were not colorable constitutional claims that would open a path to federal judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to the statutory review scheme Congress provided for Social Security matters and does not extend to attorney-discipline determinations against representatives.
- The APA does not create an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency action, particularly where Congress has provided a specific and exclusive review mechanism.
- A claimant seeking to overcome limits on statutory review must plead a colorable constitutional claim; disagreements with agency factfinding, regulatory application, or the merits of the sanction do not suffice.

## Conclusion

The court held that federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the SSA’s five-year suspension of an attorney representative because § 405(g) does not authorize such review, the APA does not supply jurisdiction, and the attorney failed to allege a colorable constitutional violation.


Stanley v. Astrue, 298 F. App’x 537 (8th Cir. 2008)