The new case that Mr. Lucia settled had to do with the issue of whether ALJs are unconstitutionally shielded from dismissal. This is all part of the Federalist Society "unitary executive" theory that Presidents must have unbridled discretion, that is if they're Republicans. The Federalist Society will suddenly discover that the constitution imposes dramatic limitations on Presidential power if Joe Biden is elected President.
Mr. Lucia eventually settled because he was tired of fighting constitutional battles. All Mr. "Buckets of Money" really wants to do is bilk simple-minded investors!
The assault on ALJs isn't over just because Mr. Lucia settled his case. It doesn't identify them but the Reuters article says there are at least three other such ALJ removal cases pending. The upcoming Supreme Court decision in the Seila Law case will probably have implications for this litigation.
There are now two decisions from the Circuit Courts: 1.) Cirko--from the 3rd Circuit found in favor of the claimants. The Government filed for an En Banc Rehearing that was denied on March 30, 2020. 2.) Carr and Minor--from the Tenth Circuit--the Court reversed the District Court decisions in favor of the claimants. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the Appointments Clause could not be raised in District Court for the first time. That case was decided on June 15, 2020. There are other cases in the 4th, 6th, 8th and 11th Circuits. The 6th had oral arguments in on April 30th, the 8th had oral arguments in November. I do not know about the 4th and 11th Circuits.
ReplyDelete4:44 PM Please, help out here. The Tenth Circuit's reasoning is, Simms doesn't count because Justice O'Connor didn't sign on to all of it, but only the part of SSA's regulations that lacked the the "Requirements of issue exhaustion" before the Agency in order to bring them up in Federal Court. This "allows" them to ignore the rest of Thomas's opinion. However, I am unaware of any SSA requirement to bring all Constitutional challenges before the Agency. Seems to be a self-defeating argument. Did John Roberts suggest this? LOL
ReplyDeleteI should say, no requirement BEFORE July 16, 2018, which, based upon the language, "could" be applied to Lucia challenges ONLY. So, if you received a decision or refusal to review by the AC BEFORE that date, then it shouldn't apply due to ex post facto. But, if John Roberts wants to protect SSA, he will find a way!
ReplyDeleteIf ALJs at SSA lose their honorific title and start being called what they really are, hearing officers, Mr. Lucia's struggle will have had some real social value.
ReplyDeleteLet's get rid of ALJ's and just go to a state agency model. Easier to manage, much cheaper cost.
ReplyDelete11"39 "Let's get rid of ALJ's and just go to a state agency model. Easier to manage, much cheaper cost".
ReplyDeleteAnd would, just by coincidence, result in far fewer benefit approvals and deny people the tight to actually see the person making the decision in their case.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the ALJs!
ReplyDeleteLet's just get rid of DDS, too. Let's make the only legal standard to obtain disability the ability to complete an application since the belief here is that the vast majority of applicants are unable to sustain any work activity on a FT basis. The cost of allowing the <1% of total applicants that a would be able to work but file nonetheless would easily be offset by the savings of all those government employee leaches.
If reps can't find something to do when they have no more business left, they can always file, too. No more evil SSA other than being a benefits administrator!