Ed Olson & Tom Krause

Background on HALLEX

The Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual, commonly known as HALLEX, serves as the primary procedural guidance document for SSA’s Office of Hearings Operations and Office of Appellate Operations. HALLEX is binding on all ALJs. Cooperman v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2023 WL 3477288, at *1 (Fed. Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 285 (2023). It conveys procedural guidance and information to hearing-level staff, includes policy statements, and defines procedures for carrying out policy and providing guidance for processing and adjudicating claims at the hearing level, Appeals Council, and federal court. Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 2000); Bowie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 539 F.3d 395, 399 (6th Cir. 2008).

While the Program Operations Manual System (POMS) provides instructions for SSA field personnel who process initial claims, HALLEX specifically addresses the appellate and litigation processes. This functional distinction has historically been reflected in the organizational structure of SSA’s guidance documents, with POMS and HALLEX maintained as separate systems.

Recent Integration into POMS

In 2025, SSA announced it was renumbering HALLEX sections “to consolidate and standardize our instructions systems.” This renumbering reflects the integration of HALLEX provisions into the POMS structure itself. The renumbered HALLEX sections now appear within POMS using an “HA” prefix designation. For example, the former HALLEX section I-3-10-1 was renumbered as POMS section HA 01395.001 through Transmittal I-3-202, posted March 3, 2025. SSA has indicated that during the undefined transition period, it will accept HALLEX references using either the prior numbering convention or the new numbering system. All links using the prior HALLEX numbering convention automatically redirect to the new HALLEX number. See Soc. Sec. Admin., Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX), https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/hallex.html (last visited Oct. 13, 2025).

The Weight Given to HALLEX by Federal Courts

The legal status of HALLEX has been a source of disagreement among the circuits. The foundational precedent remains Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 789 (1981), in which the Supreme Court held that SSA’s Claims Manual “has no legal force, and does not bind the SSA.” The Court emphasized that internal agency manuals cannot create judicially enforceable rights or estop the agency from adhering to its properly enacted regulations.

Because HALLEX does not prescribe substantive rules, it does not carry the force and effect of law. Bunnell v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003); Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d at 868; Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2007); Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2003); Dols v. Saul, 931 F.3d 741, 749 n.4 (8th Cir. 2019). Moreover, HALLEX lacks the administrative formality or other attributes that would justify substantial judicial deference. Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 786 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

A split has emerged regarding HALLEX’s enforceability. The Ninth Circuit has adopted the most restrictive approach, holding that neither POMS nor HALLEX imposes judicially enforceable duties. Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d at 1023. The Third Circuit has taken a similar position, reasoning that internal agency manuals lack the force of law. Bordes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 235 Fed. Appx. 853, 859 (3d Cir. 2007).

The Fifth Circuit, however, has charted a different course. While acknowledging that HALLEX lacks the force of law, the Fifth Circuit reviews alleged HALLEX violations, but requires a showing that the claimant was prejudiced by the agency’s failure to follow its internal guidelines. Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 459 (5th Cir. 2000).

This “prejudicial violation” standard acknowledges that fundamental fairness requires that an agency follow its own procedures when failure to do so harms claimants. The Tenth Circuit has assumed without deciding that it could grant relief for prejudicial violations of HALLEX provisions, but has not squarely addressed the issue. Butterick v. Astrue, 430 F. App’x 665, 668 (10th Cir. 2011). Other circuits have not definitively resolved the question, leaving practitioners to navigate a fragmented landscape where the enforceability of HALLEX depends significantly on the circuit in which they practice.

HALLEX’s Weight Within SSA’s Administrative Process

Within SSA’s internal adjudicatory structure, HALLEX occupies a fundamentally different position. For the Appeals Council, HALLEX represents binding procedural guidance that defines how the Appeals Council must review of ALJ decisions. The Appeals Council relies on HALLEX provisions to determine the bases for granting review under 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a), including whether there appears to be an abuse of discretion by the ALJ, an error of law, or the ALJ’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Appeals Council administrative appeals judges (AAJs) routinely cite and apply HALLEX provisions in their decisions, treating these provisions as authoritative instruction. The Appeals Council’s adherence to HALLEX is not discretionary; the Appeals Council is bound to follow the agency’s procedural instructions.

For ALJs within SSA’s hearing offices, HALLEX serves as the primary procedural manual governing how hearings should be conducted, how evidence should be evaluated, and how decisions should be written. HALLEX is binding on all ALJs. Cooperman v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2023 WL 3477288, at *1. ALJs rely on HALLEX for guidance on critical procedural matters, from scheduling hearings and providing notice to claimants to determining whether cases qualify for expedited processing to understanding the authority to reopen prior determinations.

While ALJs have substantial discretion in conducting hearings and weighing evidence, HALLEX establishes the procedural framework within which that discretion operates. The HALLEX addresses matters such as the format hearings should follow, how ALJs should handle representative fee agreements, and what procedures govern the processing of court remands.

SSA field offices, which handle initial applications for benefits and conduct non-medical development of claims, primarily rely on POMS rather than HALLEX for their operational guidance. However, HALLEX frequently cross-references POMS provisions when addressing matters that involve coordination between hearing offices and field offices, such as the designation of critical cases requiring expedited processing or the identification of cases involving terminal illnesses or dire need situations.

Practical Implications for Representatives

For attorneys representing Social Security disability claimants, understanding HALLEX remains essential despite the circuit split on enforceability. In circuits that recognize prejudicial violations of HALLEX as grounds for remand, specifically citing HALLEX provisions in appeals can provide a basis for challenging procedural errors. The Fifth Circuit’s approach in Newton v. Apfel demonstrates that documentation of HALLEX violations can support reversal or remand.

Even in circuits that do not recognize HALLEX as independently enforceable, the manual serves as persuasive evidence of what SSA’s own procedures require. When an ALJ deviates from procedures that HALLEX establishes as standard practice, this deviation may contribute to a showing that the adjudication was fundamentally unfair or failed to develop the record adequately.

The consolidation of HALLEX into POMS represents a significant administrative development that may, over time, influence how courts view the weight these provisions should receive. Representatives should monitor developments in their circuits regarding the legal effect of HALLEX and its newly integrated POMS provisions, particularly as case law continues to develop around these recently renumbered sections. Understanding both the practical function of HALLEX within SSA’s administrative process and its varying legal status across circuits remains essential for effective advocacy in Social Security disability cases.

---

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.