Carr v. Saul (2021)

But see Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1359 & n.5 (“Out‐ side the context of Appointments Clause challenges, such as in the sphere of routine objections to individual benefits determinations, the scales might tip differently.”).

Even granting that the fundamentally inquisitorial ALJ proceedings used in Social Security disability cases have some adversarial aspects, see id. at 90–92, this issue, which is inherent in the five-step process, relates more to the inquisitorial aspects of those proceedings, under which the SSA “assures claimants that [it] ‘will consider at each step of the review process any information you present as well as all the information in our records,’” id. at 90 (emphasis added)…

See Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1360 (2021) (“agency adjudications are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges, which usually fall outside the adjudicators’ areas of technical expertise”).

See id. at 1361 (“[T]his Court has consistently recognized a futility exception to exhaustion requirements.”).7 To illustrate, consider what remedy the Board could have offered if Calcutt had raised the issue and the Board had agreed that it was unconstitutionally shielded from removal.

See id. at 1361 (“[T]his Court has consistently recognized a futility exception to exhaustion requirements.”).7 To illustrate, consider what remedy the Board could have offered if Calcutt had raised the issue and the Board had agreed that it was unconstitutionally shielded from removal.

In doing so, the Supreme Court observed that ALJs are not “capable of remedying any defects in their own appointments.” Id. at 94. 6 GALVEZ V.

In April 2021, the Supreme Court disagreed with this issue-exhaustion requirement and held that an Appointments Clause challenge may be raised by a Social Security applicant “for the first time in federal court.” Id. at 95.

We generally “require parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question.” Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 88 (2021).

He also argued that, under Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 95 (2021), he was not required to exhaust this issue before the ALJ at the 2020 hearing because ALJs are ill-suited to address constitu- tional challenges and he would have been powerless to grant the requested relief.

In this circumstance, it would have been futile to bring the removal claim to the Board and “senseless for an Article III court to enforce forfeiture.” Jones Bros., 898 F.3d at 677 ; see also Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1361 (“It makes little sense to require litigants to present claims to adjudicators who are powerless to grant the relief requested.”).

Before Lucia, SSA ALJs were “selected by lower level staff rather than appointed by the head of the 3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1901 Doc: 45 Filed: 04/11/2023 Pg: 4 of 17 agency.” Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021).

Before Lucia, SSA ALJs were “selected by lower level staff rather than appointed by the head of the 3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1797 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/11/2023 Pg: 4 of 17 agency.” Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021).

Before Lucia, SSA ALJs were “selected by lower level staff rather than appointed by the head of the 3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1834 Doc: 45 Filed: 04/11/2023 Pg: 4 of 17 agency.” Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021).

The futility exception applies where “the ALJ and the Board are ‘powerless to grant the relief requested.’ ” Id. at 211 (quoting Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 93 (2021)).

As the Supreme Court recently observed in Carr v. Saul, echoing our reasoning in Reid, “agency adjudications are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges, which usually fall outside the adjudicators’ areas of technical expertise.” 593 U.S. 83, 92 (2021); see also Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 215 (1994) (“[A]djudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments has generally been thought beyond the jurisdiction of admin…

Additionally, “orderly procedure and good administration require _____________________ 54 Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 88 (2021). 55 Id. at 89 . 56 Id. at 92 . 57 Id. at 93 . 58 Id. at 92 . 17 Case: 21-60947 Document: 138-1 Page: 18 Date Filed: 07/10/2025 No. 21-60947 that objections to the proceedings of an administrative agency be made while it has opportunity for correction in order to raise issues reviewable by the courts.” 59 Further, “[s]imple fairness to those who are e…

Mass. Feb. 12, 2025) (bringing solely APA claims related to OPM’s “Fork in the Road” directive and highlighting no constitutional separation of powers issues). 2 Further, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that the MSPB and FLRA lack the relevant expertise, as well as the jurisdiction, to decide them. “[A]gency adjudications are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges.” Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 92 (2021).

Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 86 (2021); see Exec.

Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1358 (2021).

Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted); see also Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1361 (2021) (“[T]his Court has consistently recognized a futility exception to exhaustion requirements.”).

Had these claims been raised, the BIA would not have been “powerless to grant the relief requested,” Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1361 (2021), and therefore Aguiar was required to present those claims to the BIA before raising them here.

Fetting contends that the doctrines of forfeiture and waiver do not apply in disability proceedings, citing the Su- preme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1359 (2021), for support.

Fetting contends that the doctrines of forfeiture and waiver do not apply in disability proceedings, citing the Su- preme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1359 (2021), for support.

And the Court had not yet decided Carr, which held that Social Security claimants are not required to raise Appointments Clause challenges in 2 The issue of whether that ratification is constitutionally sufficient under the Appointments Clause is not before us. 3 administrative proceedings before raising them in federal court. 141 S. Ct. at 1362 (“Where, as here, claimants are not required to exhaust certain issues in administrative proceedings to preserve them for judicial …

Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1360 (2021) (“[T]his Court has often observed that agency adjudications are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges, which usually fall outside the adjudicators’ areas of technical expertise.”). 14 Case: 20-61007 Document: 00516323784 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 No. 20-61007 behavior in securities markets.

See Carr, 593 U.S. at 91 (“[T]he form to request an ALJ hearing provides roughly three lines for claimants to explain their disagreement with the agency’s determination[.]”); Probst, 980 F.3d at 1023 (“[O]n the standard ALJ hearing-request form, claimants are given a meager four lines to explain why they ‘disagree’ with their initial benefits determination.”).

In Carr, the Supreme Court rejected an issue-exhaustion requirement for 24 Appointments Clause challenges in proceedings before the ALJ. 141 S. Ct. at 1360-62. 25 Granted, the key considerations underlying the Carr holding—that agency adjudications 26 “are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges” and that there is a 27 “futility exception to exhaustion requirements”—do not apply to the issue before the Court 28 now, i.e., whether there was an app…

Even if administrative exhaustion were required, the Tenth Circuit has recognized a “narrow exception to the exhaustion requirement” where “a petitioner can demonstrate that exhaustion is futile.” Garza, 596 F.3d at 1203–04; see also Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 93 , 141 S.Ct. 1352 , 209 L.Ed.2d 376 (2021) (“It makes little sense to require litigants to present claims to adjudicators who are powerless to grant the relief requested.”).

The Court finds Jones and Josue R. to be 13 analytically insufficient in their treatment of this issue, and therefore, those cases are not 14 persuasive. 15 “SSA ALJ hearings are ‘informal, nonadversarial proceedings,’ and that ALJs are required 16 to ‘look fully into the issues themselves’ before rendering a decision on the disability 17 determination.” Id., quoting Carr, 593 U.S. at 91 (simplified).

See Defs.’ Mot. at 1, 15; Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 88 (2021) (“Administrative review schemes commonly require parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question.”).

See, e.g. , People v. Adams , 2026 NY Slip Op 50233(U), at *2 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2026) (concluding that the People did not meet their burden when, among other things, they "provide[d] no information as to what they initially requested of the police department or when they requested it"); People v. Zeigler , 2026 NY Slip Op 50232(U), at *2 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2026) (concluding that the People did not meet their burden when, among other things, they "made only vague asser…

The futility exception applies when exhaustion would be “clearly useless” and “it is certain [a] claim will be denied.” All. for Hippocratic Med. v. Food & Drug Admin., No. 23-10362, 2023 WL 2913725 , at *15 (Sth Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) (per curiam) (cleaned see also Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 93 (2021) (“[{T]his Court has consistently recognized a futility exception to exhaustion requirements.”’).

To cast this administrative process as unavailable to him, Mr. Gilbert relies on Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) and cites Justice Breyer’s concurrences in Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 97 (2021); Ross, 578 U.S. at 649-50 ; and Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 103-04 (2006).

Even if administrative exhaustion were required, the Tenth Circuit has recognized a “narrow exception to the exhaustion requirement” where “a petitioner can demonstrate that exhaustion is futile.” Garza, 596 F.3d at 1203–04; see also Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 93 (2021) (“It makes little sense to require litigants to present claims to adjudicators who are powerless to grant the relief requested.”).

Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 92 (2021) (citations omitted).

With the respect to the third Thunder Basin factor, the Court is aware that “agency adjudications are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges, which usually fall outside the adjudicator’s area of technical expertise.” Carr v. Saul, 593 U. S. 83, 92 (2021).

Even granting that the fundamentally inquisitorial ALJ proceedings used in Social Security disability cases have some adversarial aspects, see [Carr, 593 U.S. at 90-92 ], this issue, which is inherent in the five-step process, relates more to the inquisitorial aspects of those proceedings, under which the SSA “assures claimants that it ‘will consider at each step of the review process any information you present as well as all the information in our records.,’” id. at 90 [] …

Union (NTEU) v. Trump, 770 F. Supp. 3d 1 , 9 (D.D.C. 2025); cf. Axon, 592 U.S. at 180, 191 (claims challenging the constitutionality of ALJ appointments could not be channeled to ALJs). 28 Finally, these plaintiffs reprise their argument that their claims are not within the competency of the relevant agency adjudicators, who “are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges.” Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 92 (2021).

(Id. at 6-7 (citing Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1358 (2012); Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 109 (O’Connor, J., concurring); Cirko v. Comm’r of Soc.

Standard 7 In 2018, the United States Supreme Court considered a challenge to the 8 constitutional validity of all ALJs and found that all ALJs are United States 9 officers subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.30 The Supreme 10 Court found that ALJs appointed by various agencies, including the Social Security 11 Administration had not been properly appointed and were entitled to relief.31 The 12 Supreme Court stated that “the appropriate remedy for an adjud…

Futility may arise under various circumstances, but one common one is where litigants must “present claims to adjudicators who are powerless to grant the relief requested.” Carr, 593 U.S. at 93.

Id. at 1356, 1362 .

Sun Valley Bore the Responsibility to Develop Issues for the Adjudicator’s Consideration “Administrative review schemes commonly require parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question.” Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1358 (2021).

Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021).

“When the 13 SSA denies a claim for disability benefits, a claimant who wishes to contest that 14 decision in federal court must first seek a hearing before an administrative law judge.” 15 Carr v. Saul, 141 S.Ct. 1352, 1356 (2021). 16 For this Court to have jurisdiction under this Act, plaintiff must establish that a 17 “final decision” has been rendered by exhausting the administrative remedies afforded 18 to them under the administration scheme of the SSA.

See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018); Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021); see also Foster v. Comm’r of Soc.

See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018); Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021); see also Foster v. Comm’r of Soc.

On July 16, 2018, recognizing that Social Security ALJs, like the SEC ALJs at issue in Lucia, had been unconstitutionally appointed because they “had been selected by lower level staff rather than appointed by the head of the agency,” Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021), the SSA’s Acting Commissioner “pre-emptively ‘address[ed] any Appointments Clause questions involving Social Security claims’ by ‘ratif[ying] the appointments’ of all SSA ALJs and ‘approv[ing] those a…

See Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1357 (2021) (“Like the SEC ALJs at issue in Lucia, SSA ALJs had been selected by lower level staff rather than appointed by the head of the agency.”).

See Carr, 141 S. Ct. at 1357 (“Like the SEC ALJs at issue in Lucia, SSA ALJs had been selected by lower level staff rather than appointed by the head of the agency.”).