Carr v. Saul
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Carr v. Saul and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Carr v. Saul.
The Supreme Court addressed whether individuals challenging Social Security Administration (SSA) decisions must exhaust issue-exhaustion requirements for Appointments Clause claims. The Court found that no statute or regulation imposes such a requirement, and SSA ALJ proceedings are not adversarial enough to necessitate issue exhaustion. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower courts' decisions.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Carr v. Saul.
The Court held that the Courts of Appeals erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on petitioners' Appointments Clause claims.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Carr v. Saul. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Appointments and Removals is relevant to Carr v. Saul
The case revolves around whether SSA ALJs were constitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Because the SSA ALJs who denied petitioners' claims were also appointed by lower level staff, petitioners argued in federal court that they were entitled to a fresh administrative review by constitutionally appointed ALJs.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Carr v. Saul
The case involves the procedural requirements and limits of administrative law, specifically whether issue exhaustion is required in SSA proceedings.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Courts of Appeals erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on petitioners' Appointments Clause claims.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Carr v. Saul
The case discusses whether the procedural requirement of issue exhaustion should apply, impacting the fairness of the administrative process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Administrative review schemes commonly require parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Carr v. Saul that support the summary and concepts above.
The Courts of Appeals erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement on petitioners' Appointments Clause claims.
No statute or regulation imposes an issue-exhaustion requirement.
Agency adjudications are generally ill suited to address structural constitutional challenges.
