Harry v. Colvin

For over 17 years, Texas attorney Martin Harry (plaintiff) represented clients claiming benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) (defendant). At one point, Harry entered fee arrangements to represent three such clients. The arrangements complied with the Social Security Act’s requirements, meaning that when Harry secured favorable judgments for his clients, he received his compensation from the SSA. The SSA later discovered that it overpaid Harry’s clients and, consequently, overcompensated Harry. The SSA sent multiple letters to Harry requesting that he repay the overages. The letters explained that failure to do so might result in proceedings to disqualify Harry from representing clients before the SSA. Harry ignored the letters for years. The SSA eventually initiated sanction proceedings. At a sanctions hearing, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) concluded that Harry was in violation of SSA regulations and disqualified Harry from representing clients before the SSA. The SSA Appeals Council affirmed. Harry filed suit to challenge the decision, arguing, among other things, that the SSA engaged in two takings of Harry’s property without the due process required by the Fifth Amendment. First, Harry claimed that the SSA’s letters requesting repayment of the fees constituted a taking of his property interest in the fees without a prior hearing. Second, Harry argued that he was not provided adequate due process before the SSA took his property interest in his livelihood by disqualifying him. The district court rejected Harry’s claims. Harry appealed.