Rita Arguijo Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security, 23-14073

Rita Arguijo Garcia applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging she was unable to work due to disability.
Her application was denied by an administrative law judge (ALJ), and this was affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Council.
Garcia contested the lack of a “protective filing date”—a procedural benefit provided in some cases when claimants submit new but irrelevant evidence to the Appeals Council under SSR 11-1p.
She argued in district court that the regulation (SSR 11-1p) violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee because it treats some claimants more favorably based on the type of evidence submitted.
The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial; Garcia appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
The main issue on appeal relates to whether SSR 11-1p’s procedures violate equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of SSR 11-1p under Fifth Amendment	SSR 11-1p denies equal protection by treating claimants differently based on evidence submitted for review.	Regulation has a rational basis; disparate treatment is justified by administrative needs and fairness.	No violation; court affirms constitutionality.

Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) (establishing that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause imposes equal protection requirements on the federal government)
Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. 47 (2017) (clarifying rational basis review for classifications not implicating suspect classes or fundamental rights)
Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n, 558 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009) (sets forth rational basis requirement for equal protection claims)
Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 1997) (standards for reviewing constitutional challenges to administrative regulations)
Henry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of the application of legal principles by an ALJ)