Carr v. Saul
| Carr v. Saul | |
|---|---|
 | |
| 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 | |
| |
| 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 decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.
References
External links
- Text of Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)