Carr v. Saul

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Tenth Circuits erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on six disability claimants' Appointments Clause challenges to their SSA administrative law judges: because no statute or regulation required issue exhaustion, and because SSA ALJ proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial, the analogy to adversarial litigation that undergirds judicially created exhaustion rules fails—a conclusion reinforced by the constitutional character of the claims and the futility of presenting them to ALJs powerless to grant relief. The Court also rejected the Commissioner's timeliness argument, reasoning that where an issue need not be exhausted administratively, raising it for the first time in federal court is not untimely. The judgments were reversed and the cases remanded. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, concurred in part and in the judgment, agreeing the proceedings are nonadversarial but resting solely on that ground; Justice Breyer concurred in part and in the judgment, adhering to his view that issue exhaustion ordinarily applies before an ALJ but joining the constitutional-claim and futility exceptions.