Graham v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

The plaintiff, Graham, applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and was denied after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission in June 2018, which held that ALJs are constitutional officers who must be properly appointed, Graham challenged the validity of the ALJ's appointment and requested a new hearing. The Commissioner of Social Security opposed the request, arguing that Graham waived the Appointments Clause claim by failing to raise it during the administrative proceedings. On August 2, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a decision addressing whether a disability claimant who did not exhaust the constitutional challenge before the agency could obtain judicial relief based on the Lucia precedent.

The district court ruled in favor of the Commissioner, holding that Graham forfeited the Appointments Clause argument by failing to exhaust it during the administrative proceedings. The request for a remand and a new hearing was denied.

Whether a Social Security disability claimant who failed to raise an Appointments Clause challenge before the agency waives the right to judicial review of that constitutional claim following the Supreme Court's decision in Lucia v. SEC.

The decision reinforced the exhaustion requirement in Social Security disability cases, limiting the retroactive application of Lucia v. SEC. It signaled that claimants must raise Appointments Clause objections at the agency level to preserve the issue for federal court review, thereby impacting the litigation strategy for thousands of pending disability appeals and prompting the Social Security Administration to ratify the appointments of its ALJs.