King v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

This case involves a claimant, identified as King, who appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits to a federal district court following an unfavorable decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The appeal was heard in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Lucia v. SEC, which ruled that ALJs are "Officers of the United States" and must be appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause. King argued that the SSA ALJ who denied his claim was not properly appointed under this constitutional provision, thereby challenging the validity of the administrative proceedings and seeking a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed ALJ.

Consistent with the surge of post-Lucia remands in 2018, the court likely vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for a de novo hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed Administrative Law Judge.

The primary legal issue was whether the claimant timely raised a constitutional challenge to the appointment of the SSA Administrative Law Judge, and whether the presiding ALJ’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause, thereby requiring a remand for a new hearing.

The case exemplified the massive administrative and judicial fallout from the Lucia v. SEC decision, triggering thousands of similar appeals across the United States and forcing the Social Security Administration to hastily ratify the appointments of its ALJs to prevent the wholesale invalidation of disability hearing decisions.