From the Arizona Capitol Times:
A federal magistrate has voided policies of the
Social Security Administration that deny benefits to the survivors of
some gay marriages.
In a precedent-setting decision, Bruce Macdonald said
it was wrong for the government to conclude that Michael Ely did not
meet the legal requirements to be considered the legal survivor of James
A. Taylor.
Macdonald acknowledged that the policy requires that
couples have been married for at least nine months for the survivor to
get benefits. And that was not the case here, as Taylor died within six
months of their wedding.
But the judge said that Ely was legally precluded
from marrying Taylor in Arizona until October 2014 when a federal judge
voided the state’s ban on same-sex nuptials. They wed the following
month, with Taylor dying six months later.
And Macdonald said the government cannot use that unconstitutional ban to now penalize Ely. ...
The Magistrate Judge has issued only a recommended decision that must be reviewed by the actual District Judge, assuming that the parties didn't consent to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, which seems unlikely. After the District Judge decides, the case is likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeals and it could go to the Supreme Court after that. I certainly agree that denying benefits in this situation is unfair but I'm doubtful that the Courts will find it unconstitutional. Not everything that is unfair is unconstitutional.
Update: I am told that the parties did consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. I don’t know why either would have consented in this case. There can be an appeal to the District Court Judge and discretionary review in the Court of Appeals but no appeal of right to the Court of Appeals if the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
Update: I am told that the parties did consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. I don’t know why either would have consented in this case. There can be an appeal to the District Court Judge and discretionary review in the Court of Appeals but no appeal of right to the Court of Appeals if the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
6 comments:
This reporter...magistrate decisions are not precedent-setting. Sigh...
SSA largely ignores circuit court decisions and completely does in other circuits and this reporter thinks a magistrate judge's decision is a precedent? 5th Circuit decides a subpoena is an "absolute right" (sort of) while others decide it is a "qualified right" (in effect, no right...basically on the whim of the ALJ). 3rd Circuit (Cirko) decides that Lucia plus Sims equals Constitutional Issues (or, at least this one) don't have to be brought up before the ALJ or AC. Could a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court use Cirko plus Sims to expand to ANY issue doesn't have to be brought up before the ALJ or AC? If you understand Thomas's logic in Sims, it doesn't take much to get there. In Sims, Thomas saw that SSA has a DUTY to identify and discuss ALL issues of a case BECAUSE the process is nonadversarial (supposedly). Particularly when the claimant is unrepresented. SSA's hope is Chief Justice John Roberts, who twisted logic like a pretzel to save Obamacare.
With a Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate, you still have the right to appeal to the Circuit.
We practice out of AZ. It might not be normal, but the right of appeal exists using both a magistrate or district judge in the district of AZ. The only difference in terms of procedure is, once a magistrate judge issues their report and recommendation, a district judge has to sign off on it. Generally the District judge's signoff is pretty boilerplate...although given the constitutional issues involved, this one might not be.
At that point, the appeal is to the Ninth Circuit in either case. We generally don't consent to magistrates, and rarely have requested them, but the right of appeal is still there.
28 USC 636c3:
"any case referred under paragraph (1) of this subsection, an aggrieved party may appeal directly to the appropriate United States court of appeals from the judgment of the magistrate judge in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court. The consent of the parties allows a magistrate judge designated to exercise civil jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection to direct the entry of a judgment of the district court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as a limitation of any party’s right to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States."
So yes, parties have an appeal of right to the circuit court if they consent to magistrate jurisdiction. Your statement to the contrary is wrong.
12:32 is absolutely correct. I routinely consent to the magistrate in my jurisdiction for two reasons. First, he tends to be more claimant sympathetic (or at least follows our circuit precedent very closely which also tends to be claimant sympathetic). Second, it's been my experience in several jurisdictions that, if you don't consent to jurisdiction, the Article III judge will refer it to the magistrate for a Report and Recommendation. I've only had one Article III judge ever alter the judgment of the magistrate. Therefore, I believe it simply saves times and steps to just consent and, if I believe strongly enough in the case, take it up to the Circuit Court directly. I will say that I sometimes have cases in a different federal court division where the magistrate is very anti-claimant to the point where the Circuit Court raked him over the coals once for it. I never consent to that magistrate.
Post a Comment