Carr v. Saul
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 3, 2021 Decided April 22, 2021
Full case name	Willie Earl Carr, et al. v. Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security John J. Davis, et al. v. Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security
Docket nos.	19-1442 20-105
Citations	593 U.S. ___ (more)
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
A petitioner need not challenge the constitutionality of an agency's structure under the Appointments Clause in an internal agency administrative proceeding in order to present that challenge in court on appeal.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Majority	Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh; Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett (Parts I, II–A, and II–B–2); Breyer (Parts I, II–B–1, and II–B–2)
Concurrence	Thomas (in part and in the judgment), joined by Gorsuch, Barrett
Concurrence	Breyer (in part and in the judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2

Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a petitioner need not challenge the constitutionality of an agency's structure under the Appointments Clause in an internal agency administrative proceeding in order to present that challenge in court on appeal.^[1][2]

Six petitioners (including Carr) who applied for disability benefits were denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA). They each unsuccessfully challenged their respective adverse benefit determination in a hearing before an SSA administrative law judge (ALJ). The SSA Appeals Council denied discretionary review in each case. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, which held that the appointment of Securities and Exchange Commission ALJs by lower level staff violated the Constitution's Appointments Clause. Because the SSA ALJs who denied these claims were also appointed by lower level staff, petitioners argued in federal court that they were entitled to a fresh administrative review by constitutionally appointed ALJs. In each case, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners could not obtain judicial review of their Appointments Clause claims because they failed to raise those challenges in their administrative proceedings.

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 22, 2021.^[1]

• Text of Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.