New SSR On Education

     Social Security Ruling 20-01p will appear in the Federal Register on Monday. You can read it today. The obvious intent of the. Ruling is to make it really clear that Social Security won't consider inability to speak or read English in determining disability.

Why?

     CNN is asking why telework is being mostly eliminated at Social Security just as the Covid-19 virus is spreading.

Congressional Democrats Press For Resumption Of Telework As Response to Covid-19

     From a press release:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) today urged Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Andrew Saul to return telework options to SSA employees amid the outbreak of COVID-19....

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued interim guidance last month for businesses and employers that reads in part, “for employees who are able to telework, supervisors should encourage employees to telework instead of coming into the workplace until symptoms are completely resolved.” ...

     As I keep saying, this sort of message would have a greater impact if delivered in person at an oversight hearing.

     By the way, the epicenter of Covid-19 in the U.S. at the moment is Seattle. Is Social Security doing anything different in Seattle? There's a regional office there so Social Security has a significant number of employees there.

Seila Law Oral Arguments

     SCOTUSblog has posted a summary of oral arguments in Seila Law v. CFPB. There appears to be a good chance that the position of head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be found to be unconstitutional or, at least, that its head serves at the pleasure of the President.

     What would such a holding mean for Social Security? For one thing Andrew Saul would be gone by the end of next January at the latest if President Trump is not re-elected but, more important, there would probably be endless litigation on the validity of decisions made, regulations adopted and contracts granted at the Social Security Administration. These issues may require multiple Supreme Court opinions to resolve.

     It's distressing to see that the case argued before the Supreme Court dealt only with a tiny agency and that there was virtually no briefing on how this might affect a vastly larger agency that pays benefits to one person in five in this country.

     In retrospect, making Social Security an independent agency was a terrible idea. It's never really been at all independent but its theoretical independence is leading it toward pointless constitutional problems.

Case On Constitutionality Of Positions Like Commissioner Of Social Security To Be Argued At SCOTUS Today

     Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has a preview of today's oral argument at the Supreme Court in Selia Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that poses the issue of the constitutionality of federal agency heads serving fixed terms who can only be removed for cause.  This is the same situation as the Commissioner of Social Security. 

     The right wing wants to throw as much sand as possible into the gears of regulatory agencies. The Social Security Administration isn't the target -- now -- but it may become collateral damage. It's seems odd to me that there has been so little attention paid to the potential effects of this case at Social Security which is orders of magnitude larger than CFPB.

     Selia Law is the first case up today.

New Addresses For Service Of Process

     The Social Security Administration has posted new addresses for service of process effective immediately. This has to do with suing the agency. If you sue them, you have to let them know you've sued them. This is the address you use to let them know you've sued them. The address you use depends upon the judicial district the lawsuit is brought in. They had just changed these addresses in October. I believe all the changes shift cases from the Office of Regional Counsel in New York. Is there some problem there?

NYT On Selia Law

     The New York Times is running a piece on the Selia Law case that is to be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. This case has the potential to cause massive problems at Social Security. The Trump Administration would like to limit it to regulatory agencies, particularly the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but I don’t see any way to so limit it. Such wishful thinking may make it harder for this Administration to react properly and promptly once the position of Commissioner of Social Security is found unconstitutional, as it probably will be. If the agency is headed by a person who lacks a proper appointment, practically every decision he makes or which is made on a delegation of authority from him is illegitimate.

How Long Would It Have Taken To Get This Resolved Without The Help Of A TV Station?

     From some television station in Arizona:

Mary Jo Kavanaugh has a small home-based business where she does alterations. And, while Kavanaugh enjoys sewing, it's her finances that might be coming apart at the seams. That's because Kavanaugh recently retrieved a letter from the Social Security Administration, demanding that she pay a hefty sum of money. ...

The SSA wants Kavanaugh to immediately repay more than $28,000. Why? Well, the agency says it mistakenly overpaid her ex-husband, who was collecting disability. ...

"We were divorced in 2006," said Kavanaugh.

That divorce date is important because according to the letter, the Social Security Administration overpaid her ex-husband $28,116.44 between June 2009 through March 2013. ...

We asked [Social Security] to investigate the issue and once they did, Kavanaugh says she got a phone call from Social Security saying the matter has been dropped and they will not be pursuing her for $28,000 any longer. ...