SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

Smith v. Berryhill

Issues

When the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council dismisses a disability claim for not being filed on time, does that dismissal qualify as an agency’s “final decision” subject to judicial review under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)?

The Supreme Court will determine whether a decision by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council rejecting a claim for disability benefits on untimeliness grounds is a “final decision,” and therefore subject to judicial review under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act. Petitioner Ricky Lee Smith, supported by Respondent Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill, contends that the plain text of Section 405(g), as well as the Supreme Court’s interpretation of other administrative decisions, demonstrate that a decision on untimeliness grounds is a final decision for the purposes of judicial review. Amicus Curiae Deepak Gupta, who the Supreme Court to defend the Sixth Circuit’s judgment that such a decision does not constitute a “final decision” under Section 405(g), counters that Section 405(g)’s specific statutory context mandates that final decisions be understood only as decisions on the merits, not decisions on procedural grounds. This case will have important implications for untimeliness determinations, courts’ interpretations of final decisions, and social security litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the decision of the Appeals Council—the administrative body that hears a claimant’s appeal of an adverse decision of an administrative law judge regarding a disability benefit claim—to reject a disability claim on the ground that the claimant’s appeal was untimely is a “final decision” subject to judicial review under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Petitioner Ricky Lee Smith received disability benefits from Social Security between 1988 and 2004, until his financial resources increased to the point that he was no longer eligible for the benefits.  Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 813, 815 (6th Cir. 2018).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

United States v. Vaello-Madero

Issues

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to establish a program that provides benefits to needy aged, blind, and disabled individuals in all of the states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands while excluding Puerto Rico?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether withholding a federal benefits program to a United States territory resident violates equal protection. Petitioner, the United States, asserts that, under rational basis review, Congress properly excluded Puerto Rico from the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program because of the territory’s unique tax status and fiscal autonomy. Respondent José Luis Vaello-Madero counters that Petitioner misconstrues the unique relationship between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States, especially regarding the Commonwealth’s contribution to the United States Treasury fund. Furthermore, Valleo-Madero emphasizes the discriminatory nature of the Commonwealth’s exclusion from the SSI program. The outcome of this case has important implications for the treatment of territories in relation to that of states, the self-governance of territories, and the distribution of social security benefits for aged and disabled individuals.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Congress violated the equal-protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing Supplemental Security Income — a program that provides benefits to needy aged, blind and disabled individuals — in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and in the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to a negotiated covenant, but not extending it to Puerto Rico.

In 1972, Congress established Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a program that provides monthly cash payments to those that are older than sixty-five, blind, or disabled. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1382(a), 1382(c). Unlike Social Security benefits, Congress does not fund SSI through payroll taxes; rather, the treasury funds SSI.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME