Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765

Ricky L. Smith applied for Title XVI (SSI) disability benefits; his claim was denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an ALJ after a merits hearing.
Smith (through counsel) sought Appeals Council review; SSA counted his filing as untimely, found no good cause, and the Appeals Council dismissed the request as untimely.
SSA regulations treat Appeals Council dismissals for untimeliness as binding and not subject to further agency review.
Smith sued in federal district court challenging the Appeals Council dismissal; the district court and Sixth Circuit held they lacked jurisdiction because the dismissal was not a "final decision . . . made after a hearing" under 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
The Government reversed its prior position and agreed the dismissal is reviewable; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.
The Supreme Court considered statutory text, context, the presumption favoring judicial review, and administrative-law principles before ruling for Smith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an Appeals Council dismissal as untimely (after an ALJ merits hearing) is a “final decision . . . made after a hearing” under §405(g)	The dismissal is a final agency decision tied to an ALJ hearing and therefore reviewable in federal court	Historically SSA and several circuits held such dismissals are not §405(g) final decisions; the phrase should be read to require a merits disposition after exhaustion	Yes. The Court held the dismissal is a §405(g) final decision subject to judicial review because it is the agency’s terminal action and follows the ALJ hearing
Proper scope of judicial action on review (go to merits vs. remand)	Court may proceed to the merits if it finds the procedural dismissal erroneous	Ordinarily a remand is appropriate to let the agency address the merits first	Ordinary rule: jurisdiction exists to reach merits, but generally courts should remand to permit the agency to address substantive issues first; exceptions exist where remand is unnecessary

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (statutory use of “any” suggests expansive reading)
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (denial of petition to reopen is not a §405(g) final decision)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (APA two-part finality test: consummation and legal consequences)
Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (presumption favoring review; Social Security scheme protective of claimants)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (distinction between jurisdictional and waivable exhaustion requirements)
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (agency-authorized exhaustion sequence; courts respect agency-defined procedures)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework discussed and limited here)
Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638 (limits on applying Chevron where agency would define scope of judicial power)