This emergency message provides guidance to administrative law judges (ALJs) and Appeals Council (AC) members regarding objections and arguments based on a recent Supreme Court decision, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020). This message also provides instructions in the Case Processing and Management System (CPMS) and the Appeals Review Processing System (ARPS) for flagging cases in which claimants or representatives raise such objections or arguments.
On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the constitutionality of the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Supreme Court held, based on circumstances regarding the CFPB, that the CFPB’s leadership by a single director, removable by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, violated constitutional separation of powers principles. The Supreme Court further held that the for-cause removal provision was severable from the remainder of the CFPB statute.
At our ALJ hearings and AC levels, although the Supreme Court’s decision did not directly address the Social Security Administration (SSA), some claimants and representatives have raised arguments citing Seila Law to challenge the constitutionality of SSA’s structure or the authority of the agency or adjudicator to act on their claim. Such constitutional contentions, when properly presented in agency proceedings, may be preserved for judicial review. Agency adjudicators facing objections that invoke Seila Law should consider and address whether the claimant wishes to withdraw his or her hearing request and whether the ALJ should disqualify himself or herself. We provide guidance on such issues in this EM. ...C. What should an adjudicator do if a claimant or representative raises an objection under Seila Law?
1. Challenge Made at the Hearing Level
If a claimant or representative presents an objection invoking Seila Law at the hearing level (whether orally at the hearing, in writing before or after the hearing, or both), the ALJ should consider several questions, set forth below, and document the ALJ’s consideration of these questions in the hearing decision as appropriate.
(1) Is the claimant seeking to withdraw his or her request for a hearing?
(2) Is the claimant asking the presiding ALJ to withdraw from the case in favor of another agency adjudicator?
a. Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.957(a) and 416.1457(a), an ALJ may dismiss a request for a hearing at any time before the notice of the hearing decision is mailed, when the claimant withdraws the request orally on the record at the hearing or in writing.
b. The ALJ should consider whether the claimant’s objection seeks to withdraw his or her request for a hearing.
i. If the claimant’s objection expresses an intention to withdraw the request for a hearing, the ALJ should properly develop the request by following the guidance in HALLEX I-2-4-20.
ii. If the claimant’s objection does not express the intention to withdraw the request for a hearing, it would be appropriate to indicate in the hearing decision that, while the claimant objected to the proceeding based on separation of powers principles, the claimant did not ask to withdraw his or her request for a hearing as permitted under 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(a) or §416.1457(a) (or both); that the claimant appeared at the hearing; and that the ALJ accordingly issues a decision on the claim.(3) Is the claimant objecting to the ALJ’s authority to render an unfavorable decision on the claim (but not to render a favorable decision on the claim)?
a. ALJs have a duty to consider objections to the ALJ presiding in the case. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.940, 416.1440. Under the regulations, an ALJ shall not conduct a hearing if he or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision. See SSR 13-1p. If the ALJ finds withdrawal appropriate, another ALJ will be appointed to conduct the hearing.
b. The ALJ should consider whether the claimant’s objection seeks the ALJ’s disqualification and withdrawal in favor of another agency adjudicator.
i. If a claimant’s objection seeks the presiding ALJ’s disqualification and withdrawal on grounds specific to the presiding ALJ (such as prejudice or partiality), the ALJ shall either address the objection in the decision or withdraw, as appropriate under regulatory guidance. See HALLEX I-2-1-60.
ii. If a claimant’s objection does not seek the presiding ALJ’s disqualification and withdrawal on grounds specific to the presiding ALJ (such as prejudice or partiality), the ALJ should indicate in the hearing decision that the claimant has not challenged the presiding ALJ’s qualifications in a manner that is specific to the presiding ALJ (such as prejudice or partiality), and that the ALJ accordingly conducted the hearing and hereby issues a decision on the claim.
a. Governing regulations provide that the ALJ shall look fully into the issues at a hearing, and, based on a preponderance of the evidence offered at the hearing or otherwise included in the record, issue a written decision giving the findings of fact and the reasons for the decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.944, 404.953(a), 416.1444, 416.1453(a).
b. If a claimant’s objection expresses a view that, because of separation of powers principles, the ALJ lacks authority to deny the claim, it would be appropriate for the ALJ to indicate in the hearing decision that regulations governing the ALJ’s duties and responsibilities require the ALJ to decide a claim, whether favorably or unfavorably, based on the evidence of record. ...
This is an obvious attempt to intimidate claimants and their attorneys to prevent Seila Law objections. It implies, but doesn't state, that favorable decisions might be overturned if the Supreme Court holds that the position of Commissioner of Social Security is unconstitutional. It doesn't allow ALJs or the Appeals Council to actually consider Seila Law objections on the merits but if they don't raise such objections, the agency will argue in court that they waived them. This puts ALJs in the position of playing litigation games with claimants. This is unworthy of the Social Security Administration.
By the way, there was no need for this Emergency Message if Andrew Saul was about to resign as Commissioner.
