Jones v. Kijakazi

Brian Jones applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. His claim was denied by an administrative law judge (ALJ) employed by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Jones challenged the decision, arguing that the ALJ who heard his case was appointed by an SSA official who was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court and the Eighth Circuit upheld the denial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, heard oral arguments in October 2025, and issued its ruling on February 3, 2026. The Court held that SSA ALJs are “inferior officers” whose appointments must comply with the Appointments Clause, but that Jones had forfeited his constitutional challenge by failing to raise it during the administrative proceedings. The denial of benefits was affirmed.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that SSA ALJs are inferior officers subject to the Appointments Clause, but held that the petitioner forfeited his claim by not timely raising it at the administrative level. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, and the disability benefits denial stood.

Whether the appointment of Social Security Administration administrative law judges violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and whether a claimant who did not raise the issue during agency proceedings may later obtain judicial relief.

The decision settled the constitutional status of SSA ALJs but preserved the finality of tens of thousands of disability determinations by enforcing procedural default rules. It prompted the SSA to restructure ALJ appointment procedures to comply with the Appointments Clause, while avoiding massive disruption to the social security disability adjudication system.