Carr v. Saul

Carr v. Saul asks whether people seeking Social Security disability benefits must raise an Appointments Clause challenge during their agency case before they can make that argument in court. In plain terms, the Court is being asked whether missing that issue before the administrative law judge blocks later judicial review.

The case had not been scheduled for oral argument yet. The dispute is whether Social Security claimants must present an Appointments Clause challenge to the agency before raising it in court.

This matters for disability applicants who lose benefits and later want to argue that the judge who heard their case was not properly appointed. If courts require that objection to be raised early, some claimants could lose a constitutional argument before they even know it exists.

The next milestone is oral argument or another scheduling move from the Court. No decision window is available yet.

The case asks whether disability claimants must object during Social Security agency proceedings to preserve an Appointments Clause argument for court. The Court has not yet answered that question here.

People applying for Social Security disability benefits could be affected most. A claimant who lost before an agency judge might lose a constitutional argument if courts require an earlier objection.

Watch for the Supreme Court to schedule oral argument or issue another calendar update. Until then, there is no decision timeline to track.