Kelly v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Plaintiff Kelly appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits to the Tenth Circuit, raising for the first time a constitutional challenge under the Appointments Clause. Kelly argued that the administrative law judge (ALJ) who conducted the hearing was an “Officer of the United States” who must be appointed by the President, a court, or a department head, and that the Social Security Administration’s method of hiring ALJs through competitive civil service violated this requirement. The government maintained that ALJs are mere employees, not constitutional officers. The court examined the nature of ALJ duties and remedial authority under the Social Security Act.

The Tenth Circuit held that Social Security ALJs are not constitutional officers because their decisions are not final and are subject to de novo review by the Appeals Council, and they do not exercise significant independent authority. Therefore, the Appointments Clause was not violated, and the denial of benefits was affirmed.

Whether administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration are “inferior officers” subject to the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and whether their appointment through standard competitive civil service procedures renders disability benefit determinations invalid.

The ruling reinforced a circuit split on the status of ALJs. It was later effectively overturned by the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC, which declared SEC ALJs to be officers. In response, the Social Security Administration ratified ALJ appointments and remanded thousands of pending cases for new hearings to resolve Appointments Clause challenges.