The Supreme Court on Thursday firmly rejected the government’s request that the court impose an “issue-exhaustion” requirement on Social Security claimants. In Carr v. Saul (consolidated with Davis v. Saul), all parties agreed that those claimants must take their claims first to the Social Security Administration – and these claimants did that. The question was whether they must raise, before the agency, all of the issues they will eventually raise when they get to court. In this case, for example, the claimants in agency proceedings from 2013 to 2015 did not know that a 2018 decision of the Supreme Court would invalidate the SSA’s process for appointing administrative law judges, and so they did not complain about that process before the agency. The lower courts held that because they did not have the prescience to raise that issue before the agency, they could not raise it now, and thus would get no remedy for the denial of their claims by an unlawful administrative law judge. Although four of the justices disagreed with minor aspects of the opinion for the court by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, all of the justices rejected the rulings imposing that requirement.
Sotomayor’s opinion starts by noting that “[a]dministrative review schemes commonly require parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question,” and emphasizes that those requirements “[t]ypically … are creatures of statute or regulation.” Because there is no statute or regulation in this case, the government was seeking a “judicially created issue-exhaustion requirement.” Sotomayor goes on to explain that the courts typically assess the propriety of judicially created exhaustion requirements based “on the degree to which the analogy to normal adversarial litigation applies in a particular administrative proceeding.” Prior cases have held that the “critical feature that distinguishes adversarial proceedings from inquisitorial ones is whether claimants bear the responsibility to develop issues for adjudicators’ consideration.”Read Full Article