Justices grant new instances involving challenges to Social Safety Administration judges

Symposium: The individual plaintiffs in California v. Texas suffer a greater Article III injury than did the individual plaintiffs in NFIB v. Sebelius

Posted on Monday, Nov 9th 2020 at 12:41 pm by Amy Howe

The Supreme Court issued orders from the private conference of judges on Monday morning last week. The judges added two new cases, which were consolidated for an hour of hearing, to their earnings for the tenure. Monday’s list was also the first in a series of regularly scheduled orders that included the court’s newest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett.

The judges settled in Carr vs. Saul and Davis vs. Saul should weigh up when someone seeking social security benefits can question the validity of the judge holding the administrative hearing. When Willie Carr and John Davis filed for disability benefits, an administrative judge denied each of their applications after a hearing. After their administrative complaints were also unsuccessful, the men (as well as others in a similar position) went to the federal court, where they argued for the first time that the appointment of the administrative judges who conducted their hearings was inconsistent with the constitutional appointment clause, the requirements for appointment imposed by government officials. The federal appeals courts rejected this argument, ruling that since the men had not questioned the legality of the appointments of administrative judges in the Social Security Administration, it was not the first time they could bring it to federal court.

The judges took a case that was already scheduled for argument from their merit record. However, because the case was consolidated with a second case, the removal does not affect the total number of hours of argument time for the runtime. The judges issued a review in the AMG Capital Management v Federal Trade Commission and Federal Trade Commission v Credit Bureau Center case in July to see if a provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act gives the FTC the authority to return defendants To demand funds received as a result of their illegal activities. The cases were heard orally for a total of one hour – in all likelihood January 2021. However, presumably because Barrett had voted on the Credit Bureau Center when it went to the full US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019, Judges Am An order was passed Monday indicating that the two cases were no longer consolidated, and they suspended the review in the 7th Circuit case, which will now likely wait for the court to make its decision in AMG Capital Management .

The judges rejected a motion from two members of Congress, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) And Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) Ab, SpeechNow.org v Federal Election Commission, a 2010 US decision, Repeal the District of Columbia Circuit’s Court of Appeal, which paved the way for “super-PACs” – groups who can accept unlimited donations as long as they don’t coordinate with political candidates or their parties. A letter from a “friend of the court” of a group of senators had urged the judges to weigh up, telling them that allowing unlimited contributions “allows corruption to flourish, demoralize voters, and power in the hands of a surprisingly small number of the very wealthy focused. ”

The next conference of judges is scheduled for Friday November 13th.

This post was originally published on Howe on the Court.

Posted in AMG Capital Management, LLC v Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission v Credit Bureau Center, LLC, Carr v Saul, Davis v Saul, Featured, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended citation:
Amy Howe, Judge Grant New Cases Challenging Social Security Agency Judges
SCOTUSblog (November 9, 2020, 12:41 pm), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-grant-new-cases-involving-challenges-to-social-security-administration-judges/