EPISODE · Apr 30, 2021 · 25 MIN
Carr v. Saul - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
from SCOTUScast · host The Federalist Society
On April 22, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul. was whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings. In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.” Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas Berry, Research Fellow at the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies of Cato Institute and Managing Editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
What this episode covers
On April 22, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul. was whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings. In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.” Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas Berry, Research Fellow at the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies of Cato Institute and Managing Editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
NOW PLAYING
Carr v. Saul - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
No transcript for this episode yet
Similar Episodes
No similar episodes found.