143 F.4th 90
2d Cir.2025Background
- Mollie Marie Flinton applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2015, alleging mental health disabilities.
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mark Solomon, not properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, denied her claim in 2018.
- After the Supreme Court's Lucia v. SEC (2018) decision, SSA ratified ALJ appointments to comply with constitutional requirements.
- Flinton's initial denial was remanded by the district court in 2020 for further review, but on remand, the same ALJ (now properly appointed) heard her case.
- Flinton received a partially favorable decision in 2021 but raised an Appointments Clause challenge in a subsequent federal lawsuit, seeking a new hearing before a different ALJ.
- The district court rejected this argument; Flinton appealed to the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flinton is entitled to a new hearing before a different, properly appointed ALJ due to an Appointments Clause violation in the original hearing. | Flinton argued that under Lucia, she was entitled to a hearing before a different ALJ because her prior hearing was conducted by an improperly appointed ALJ, and the subsequent hearing by the same ALJ did not cure the constitutional defect. | The Commissioner argued that since ALJ Solomon was properly appointed by the time he held the second hearing, there was no ongoing Appointments Clause violation, especially since the first decision had been vacated on the merits. | The court held that Flinton was entitled to a new hearing before a different, properly appointed ALJ, as required by Lucia, regardless of the merits-based vacatur of the original decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. 237 (2018) (held that federal ALJs are "inferior officers" subject to the Appointments Clause and remedies for violations include a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed ALJ)
- Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995) (remedy for an appointments violation is a new hearing before a properly appointed official)
- Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (Appointments Clause maintains constitutional structure and prevents diffusion of appointment power)
- Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83 (2021) (claimants may raise Appointments Clause claims for the first time in federal court)