Administrative Law Judges make rulings and decisions in many different administrative branches, these rulings are final, just like rulings criminal or civil judges make, and ALJs make rulings in Social Security disability cases all the time. These rulings are now in jeopardy considering the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Lucia v. SEC, which may decided whether ALJs and their decisions are constitutional.
If the Supreme Court rules that ALJs are unconstitutional it would create nothing short of a meltdown of the Social Security disability process. According to a recent article published by the Insurance Journal, the plaintiff, Raymond Lucia, is claiming that the Constitution requires ALJs to be appointed by the president, a department head, or court, otherwise they should not be allowed to make the rulings that are binding today. Lucia appealed a fine of $300,000 from a Security and Exchange Commission judge for misleading clients. The Trump Administration said, last November, that it would not defend the SEC, but previously the Administration stood by the system that currently allows ALJs to make these types of rulings.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Lucia there is no telling what would happen to Social Security’s system of deciding disability cases through hearings administered by ALJs.
As it currently exists, Social Security ALJs are appointed based on a lengthy written exam and an oral examination taken before an examination panel that includes a representative of the American Bar Association and an active ALJ. This is exactly the type of system that Lucia is arguing is unconstitutional because these judges are not appointed by the president, a department head, which presumably would include the Social Security commissioner, or a court.
The decision from the Supreme Court on this matter could have huge ramifications for the Social Security Administration in the future.
