How a Social Security Disability Case Actually Moves Through the System

How a Social Security Disability Case Actually Moves Through the System

The lifecycle of an administrative case is the full journey a claim takes from initial application through agency review to federal court, shaped at every stage by who builds the record and who sees it.

Most people think of their hearing as the main event — the day they finally get to explain their situation to someone who can decide their case. But by the time a claimant walks into the hearing room, the record has already been built, the framing has already been set, and the most consequential decisions have often already been made at stages where the claimant had the least help and the least protection.

This episode follows a single hypothetical case — Kathleen, a 54-year-old warehouse supervisor with degenerative disc disease — from her initial application through reconsideration, the long wait, the ALJ hearing, the Appeals Council, and finally federal court. About 60% of initial disability applications are denied. On reconsideration, 80 to 85% of those denials stick. Then comes a 12-to-18-month wait for a hearing before an administrative law judge, where approval rates jump dramatically — the system eventually gives claimants the kind of live, in-person process that Mathews v. Eldridge said wasn't constitutionally required, but only after years of paper denials by people the claimant will never meet.

What makes this episode different is that it maps every doctrine covered this season onto a single timeline — due process, property interests, the inquisitorial model, and deferential judicial review — and closes with a sharp contrast: when the government initiates an enforcement action, the constitutional stakes appear at the very beginning of the timeline, not the end.

Listen Now

Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Listen on our site

What We Cover

  • Why the insurance adjuster analogy explains how bureaucratic systems process every kind of claim — and why the first thirty minutes of documentation shape everything that follows
  • How Social Security disability applications are framed at a local field office by a non-medical employee, and why that first interview becomes the first draft of the case
  • Why state Disability Determination Services — not Social Security itself — make the initial medical decision, and why the claimant never meets the decision maker
  • Why initial applicants have no constitutional due process rights to a hearing, even though people already receiving benefits do
  • How the 12-to-18-month wait before an ALJ hearing is actually when the case is built or lost, depending on whether the claimant gets a representative
  • What actually happens inside an ALJ hearing — the oath, the live observation, the vocational expert's hypotheticals, and why the ALJ is investigator, questioner, and judge simultaneously
  • How the Appeals Council and deferential judicial review make factual findings built years earlier nearly untouchable
  • Why enforcement actions like Jarkesy move through an almost unrecognizable version of the same system, with constitutional rights engaged from day one

Full Rough Transcript

The Adjuster’s Report

Gwen: Hello, and welcome to Administrative Remedies, because you can’t fix what you don’t understand. Brought to you in part by the University of Tulsa College of Law. I’m Gwendolyn Savitz, an associate professor here at TU and the associate dean of research and intellectual life.

Marc: And I’m Marc Roark. I’m the dean of the College of Law.

Gwen: We’ll be breaking down complex doctrines with real-life analogies and examples to demystify the world of administrative law for everyone trying to understand how government actually works.

Marc: Agencies are the main way the federal government gets things done. It’s not through Congress, for reasons we’ll be addressing over the course of this series.

Gwen: Marc, last year one of Jeremy’s friends had a tree fall on their house, and they went back and forth with the insurance company for months. It was an absolute nightmare.

Marc: Yeah, they can be terrible, even when things are really much smaller. Hail hits the roof. You call the insurance company. Then you wait for the adjuster. The adjuster shows up. He spends maybe 30 minutes at your house, walks on the roof. And even if they get on the roof and they take some photos, poke a few shingles, looks at the gutters.

Gwen: Yeah. And then they just go back to the truck and write the report. And what do you get? You get a number. “We estimate $8,200 in covered damage.” And you’re standing in the kitchen looking at water stains on the ceiling thinking, that doesn’t even come close to all of the costs that this is going to have.

So here’s what’s important. The report the adjuster is creating isn’t just a number. It’s an inventory of what the adjuster saw, and importantly, what they didn’t see or at least didn’t document. If they didn’t photograph the damage in the back bedroom, it’s not in the report. If they wrote “minor cosmetic damage” instead of “structural compromise to decking,” that characterization of minor cosmetic damage is now permanently in the record.

Marc: So you can dispute it. You can call the insurance company. They can send a second adjuster out, or sometimes they just have a desk reviewer look at the first adjuster’s photos and report, and they make a determination from there.

Gwen: So then that desk reviewer is reading the first adjuster’s report. They’re seeing the damage through that adjuster’s eyes. They’re seeing the photos that that adjuster took. And they’re seeing how that adjuster described it. Again, if the first adjuster didn’t document it, the desk reviewer certainly won’t know it’s there.

Marc: So the second review then comes back about the same, maybe a few hundred dollars more. Now you can hire a public adjuster or a contractor to do their own inspection. And they say the real damage is $24,000. So then you invoke the appraisal clause in your policy.

Gwen: And that process, that can feel like the moment you finally have your own expert. There’s a neutral umpire. This should be a fair, independent evaluation of the actual damage.

Marc: Okay, but what’s on the table when the umpire sits down? Then they’re looking at two competing estimates. And one of them, the insurance company’s, was built on a visit immediately after the incident happened. What the first adjuster saw, what they photographed, how they characterized it. Your side is trying to overcome that initial framing.

Gwen: And this can feel like the main event, but the initial 30-minute visit shaped everything that then came after.

Marc: Exactly. Everything after it—the desk review, your dispute, the appraisal—it’s all shaped by what that one person documented in half an hour, months earlier.

Gwen: And by the time you get your independent evaluation and get to this point, you’ve been living with a tarp on your roof, water damage that’s getting worse, and you’re fighting a record that was written before you even understood what was happening.

Marc: So I’m guessing this isn’t really about roofs then.

Gwen: It is not. It’s about what happens every time a bureaucratic system processes a claim. There’s a stage everyone thinks of as their hearing—the moment in front of a real decision maker. And it matters. But by the time you get there, critical parts of the record have been built. The claim has been framed, and the most consequential decisions were already made at stages where you had the least help and the least protection.

Today we follow a case through that whole process. One person, one system, start to finish. We’re using Social Security disability because it touches more people than almost any other adjudication system in the country, and because the stakes there are about as personal as it gets. We’ll come back for a deeper dive into Social Security itself later in the season. Today is about mapping the path—seeing where power gets exercised, where the doctrines we’ve been studying actually bite, and where the gaps are.

Meet Kathleen

Gwen: We’re going to start out with a hypothetical person called Kathleen. She’s 54. She lives in Oklahoma. She’s worked as a warehouse supervisor for 22 years. And now she’s developed degenerative disc disease that’s been getting progressively worse. She has chronic pain, limited mobility, numbness in her legs. She tried doing lighter duty. Then she used up her Family Medical Leave Act leave. And eventually her employer let her go because she couldn’t perform the essential functions of her job anymore.

Marc: So she needs to apply for disability benefits.

Gwen: Exactly. This is where the journey starts. She goes to her local Social Security field office. She sits down with someone and fills out an application. And this is the first place power gets exercised in ways Kathleen won’t even notice.

The Application: Framing the Claim

Marc: At the application stage, what power is there to exercise?

Gwen: So the field officer is helping Kathleen fill out her forms. They’re not making a medical determination. That’ll happen later. But they’re shaping how her claim gets framed. What conditions does she list? How does she describe her limitation? If the employee asks, “Can you walk to the mailbox?” and Kathleen says, “Yes, on a good day,” that gets written down. It may end up in her file as “claimant reports ability to walk to the mailbox.”

Marc: Without the qualifier.

Gwen: Exactly. A lot of the context can get lost. And Kathleen has no lawyer at this point. Almost nobody has a lawyer at the initial application stage. She’s describing her worst medical condition to a non-medical government employee. And that description becomes the first draft of her case.

Marc: And first drafts do have a way of sticking around.

Gwen: They do. This application will also ask Kathleen about daily activities. Can she cook, drive, shop? These might seem like friendly questions, but every answer becomes evidence. If Kathleen says she can drive to the grocery store once a week, that shows up later when someone is deciding whether she can sustain full-time work. And she doesn’t even know that she’s building a record.

Marc: Right. Not really.

Gwen: And that’s the first exercise of power—this framing. The application stage determines what the government knows about Kathleen’s claim, and she has little practical ability to control the narrative here.

The Invisible Decision

Gwen: Her application next goes to the State Disability Determination Service. This is the agency that will actually decide whether she’s disabled, for the first time in our progression here.

Marc: So it’s not Social Security that decides.

Gwen: Right. Not at this stage. Social Security contracts with state agencies to make the initial determination. In Oklahoma, they do it with the Department of Rehabilitation Services. The department has its own doctors, its own analysts, and they’re the ones reviewing the medical records.

Marc: And has Kathleen met any of these people?

Gwen: No. And she probably never will. Their analyst is reviewing Kathleen’s medical records, maybe ordering a consultative examination—a one-time visit with a doctor who’s never treated Kathleen previously—and then makes a determination.

Marc: This is the investigator-adjudicator overlap we talked about in our inquisitorial model episode. Except here, it’s not even an ALJ doing it. It’s a state employee Kathleen will never meet.

Gwen: Right. And one of the biggest problems at this stage is incomplete medical evidence. The DDS is supposed to develop the record, but they’re processing enormous volumes. If her doctor’s office is slow to respond to record requests, they might just decide the case based on whatever they have.

Marc: Which could be almost nothing.

Gwen: Yes. And the initial denial rate is about 60%. And many of those denials are based on incomplete records or cursory medical examinations or function reports filled out by claimants who didn’t understand what they were really being asked.

Marc: Kathleen never met her decision maker. In fact, never had the chance to explain her situation. Never saw the evidence against her until after the decision was made. That seems like it should raise some due process concerns.

Gwen: And it doesn’t, at least not constitutionally. So remember when we were talking about Roth—due process protects against deprivation of an existing property interest. Mathews tells you how much process is due when the government is taking something away. But Kathleen isn’t having anything taken away. She’s an initial applicant. She’s never received disability benefits. So she’s asking for something and the government is saying no.

Marc: So the constitutional framework doesn’t even reach her.

Gwen: Right. Not in that way. Mathews—that was about Social Security disability, but it was somebody who was already receiving benefits. He had a property interest because the government was taking away something he had. But Kathleen doesn’t have the same thing.

Marc: So the people who need the most protection end up getting the least. Someone who’s already receiving benefits has constitutional rights if the government tries to cut them off. But someone who’s never received anything, who might be destitute or who might be sicker, has no constitutional right to the process before the initial denial.

Gwen: Yes, this is the structural consequence of tying due process to deprivation of an existing interest. The 60% initial denial rate, the invisible decision maker, the incomplete records—this can feel wrong. But the constitutional framework isn’t designed to reach it. Whatever process Kathleen gets at this stage is what Congress and Social Security chose to provide, not what the Constitution requires.

Marc: And the numbers suggest that what they chose to provide isn’t working. 60% denied initially. Right. But because there’s no constitutional right to a hearing for these people, the only pressure to fix this would come from Congress, not from courts.

Reconsideration: The Do-Over That Isn’t

Gwen: So Kathleen got denied at that initial denial stage. She has 60 days to ask for reconsideration.

Marc: Walk us through what happens on reconsideration.

Gwen: In most states, it’s basically the same thing. A different DDS analyst reviews the file—the same type of employee, the same agency, the same process. She can submit new evidence, but she probably still doesn’t have a lawyer, still doesn’t know exactly why she was denied, and still doesn’t get to appear in person.

Marc: So it’s the same process, but with a different analyst.

Gwen: Yes. And on reconsideration—and remember, these are people who were already denied once—the denial rate on the second round runs 80 to 85%. Most denials are denied again.

Marc: So the second analyst is looking at basically the same file and reaching the same conclusion.

Gwen: Yes. Given the initial denials and the similar record, it’s actually almost surprising some of the appeals are granted.

Marc: That’s the insurance analogy again. The desk reviewer reading the first adjuster’s report. Same framing, same photos, same characterizations. The record was built at the first stage, and now everyone downstream is working from it.

Gwen: Yes. And by now, Kathleen has been waiting for a while. That initial determination might have taken three to six months. Reconsideration is adding another two to four months. So we’re potentially 10 months in. And Kathleen has been denied twice by people who’ve never met her.

Marc: So no disability income that entire time.

Gwen: Right. So if she has savings, they are draining. If she has family support, it’s being strained. And remember, the Constitution doesn’t require any of this process for initial applicants. Whatever she gets is statutory, not constitutional. This system could give her less and still be legally compliant.

The Wait

Marc: All right. After the second denial, now she can request a hearing before an administrative law judge. So she does that and then she waits.

Gwen: Okay.

Marc: How long?

Gwen: Potentially like 12 to 18 months in a lot of hearing offices. Some are even longer than that.

Marc: So now from her initial application to this hearing, she might be waiting two and a half to three years. Does anything happen during the wait?

Gwen: This is one of the most consequential periods of the entire lifecycle. Because this is when Kathleen needs to build her case.

Marc: How exactly does she build a case?

Gwen: This is when she should be getting a representative—someone who specializes in disability claims. They don’t have to be an attorney. And what that representative does during the waiting period shapes the hearing more than almost anything that happens in the hearing room itself.

Marc: What do you mean?

Gwen: The representative needs to be able to collect updated medical records, get detailed opinions from her treating physicians, potentially commission a functional capacity evaluation, identify medical experts, review the vocational evidence, anticipate what the vocational expert will say. All of this is happening before the hearing, because by the time the hearing starts, the documentary record is largely built.

Marc: So the hearing is where the evidence that was gathered during the wait gets tested.

Gwen: Yes. So someone who spent 18 months with a good representative could gather strong medical evidence and be in a completely different position than someone who spent the 18 months doing nothing because they didn’t know anything was needed, and they were waiting for their opportunity to present their case.

Marc: And two people with the exact same medical condition could have very different outcomes based on what happened during that wait.

Gwen: Yes, that’s the reality. And it’s another place where power is exercised invisibly. The hearing looks like the main event, but the wait is where the case is actually built or lost.

The Hearing

Gwen: So Kathleen finally has her hearing date. It has arrived. So two and a half years later, this is the day. She walks into a small hearing office, not a courtroom. It might be a dedicated hearing room at the agency or potentially rented conference space in a random office building. There’s no jury box. There’s no spectator gallery. There’s just a table for Kathleen and her representative, if she has one. And the ALJ’s bench and some recording equipment and a couple of chairs for witnesses. That’s the whole setting for this decision that can determine whether she has income for the rest of her working life.

Marc: And that’s much, much less formal than people expect when they hear the word “hearing.”

Gwen: Yes. So the ALJ walks in and the first thing that happens is, “We’re going on the record.” Recording starts. And from that moment, everything said is part of the official record. And on appeal, the reviewing court only sees what’s in this record. If something doesn’t get said here, if a critical document doesn’t get admitted, it’s hard, if not impossible, to get it admitted later. This is Kathleen’s last real chance to shape the facts of her case.

Marc: So everything we’ve been saying about how the record gets built. This is where it freezes.

Gwen: Yes, it almost totally freezes for everything that comes after. And this is also the first time in over two years that Kathleen is going to be looking any decision maker in the eye. All the prior denials came from people she’d never met who were just working from paper. The ALJ is the first person who will actually hear her, watch her, and assess her credibility directly.

Marc: Two and a half years of paper, and now she’s finally being judged partly on how she sits in a chair.

Gwen: Yes, that’s what happens. She takes an oath. And from that moment, the ALJ is watching everything. Does she shift in her chair during the hearing? Does she wince when she stands up? Can she sit through the full 45 minutes without needing to stand? These observations become part of the decision. They’re evidence that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the paper file. And this is exactly the kind of evidence that the Mathews Court said disability cases didn’t really need.

Marc: And the ALJ isn’t a neutral referee watching these two sides fight. Right. There’s no government attorney arguing that Kathleen isn’t disabled. The ALJ is supposed to independently develop the record. They’re supposed to ask questions, probe inconsistencies, elicit testimony. They are the investigator, the questioner, and the judge all in the same proceeding.

Gwen: That’s the inquisitorial model we covered earlier. And so when the ALJ asks Kathleen a tough question, that’s the role, not hostility. Right. They might not be asking in a very friendly manner, but their job is to be asking questions of her. So they might say something like, “Your medical records mention you went fishing in June. Can you explain that?” She might feel like she’s being cross-examined, but the ALJ is testing the evidence. They’re not advocating against her.

Marc: Whoa. But that sounds like a dangerous position for Kathleen.

Gwen: Yeah, it potentially can be. If she says she can’t sit for more than 30 minutes, but she mentions taking a fishing trip, the ALJ has to decide whether those things are consistent. Maybe she sat on a chair on a dock for 10 minutes and went home. Maybe she went on a boat for six hours. The record probably doesn’t say, but the ALJ has to reconcile the documented activity with the claimed limitations. And her explanation in that moment may determine whether the ALJ believes anything else she says.

Marc: And then the vocational expert testifies.

Gwen: Yes. So the vocational expert tells the ALJ what jobs exist in the national economy that someone with Kathleen’s limitations could theoretically perform. The ALJ poses hypothetical questions. If a person can sit for six hours but needs to change positions every 30 minutes, can stand for two hours total, and can occasionally lift 10 pounds, what jobs are available?

Marc: And how much depends on how that hypothetical gets framed?

Gwen: Almost everything. Because if the vocational expert says there are enough jobs, the ALJ can deny the claim. And that framing depends on what’s in the record. If her representative got a detailed functional capacity evaluation showing she needs to lie down for an hour during the workday, that limitation is potentially getting built into the hypothetical. If there’s nothing documenting it, it probably isn’t.

Marc: Okay. Can the representative then push back on the vocational expert’s answers?

Gwen: So potentially, yes. The vocational expert could say there are 50,000 jobs nationally as a document preparer. The representative could add Kathleen’s actual limitations one at a time—extra breaks, expected absences, off-task time—and ask whether the jobs survive. If no jobs survive, the ALJ has to find her disabled.

Marc: So the hearing isn’t really theater.

Gwen: Yes. But the claimant is more likely to be successful if they’ve had competent representation, so that the record could be properly built.

Marc: If the hearing goes great, but the record is weak, does Kathleen’s credibility alone carry the case?

Gwen: Usually not. If the documentary evidence doesn’t support the limitations she’s describing, credibility findings get deference, but they can’t manufacture medical evidence. A strong record can survive a mediocre hearing. A weak record is hard to save with testimony alone. And the empirical model shows how much the live hearing matters. We have roughly 60% denied at that first round, roughly 50% approved when they finally get in front of a human being. The system eventually gives claimants exactly the kind of process Mathews said wasn’t necessary.

The Decision and Beyond

Gwen: So the ALJ issues a written decision. At this point, if Kathleen wins, she gets benefits, and they’re usually done with back pay to the date of the application or some set period before that.

Marc: And what if she loses?

Gwen: Then she can appeal to the Appeals Council. That’s a body within Social Security. It’s not a court, and it reviews the ALJ’s decisions. The Appeals Council grants review in only a small percentage of cases. Most requests are denied, which means the ALJ’s decision becomes the final agency decision.

Marc: And final agency action is the trigger for now the courts to get involved. Right. That’s what we need for judicial review. She can’t go to federal court until she’s exhausted her administrative remedies. That’s the initial determination, the reconsideration, the ALJ hearing, requesting Appeals Council review—four levels of agency process before she can see a federal judge.

Gwen: And so now when she does finally get to go to federal court, here the standard of review is really deferential. The court is asking whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. This is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. The court isn’t re-deciding the case. It’s asking whether a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.

Marc: So even at judicial review, the ALJ’s factual findings are largely untouchable.

Gwen: Right. So this brings us full circle. Those factual findings are built on the record. The record was built during the wait. And realistically, it was shaped by whether Kathleen had representation. That initial framing was shaped by the field office interview. By the time the federal court reviews the case, it’s reviewing a record that was constructed years earlier at stages where Kathleen had the least power and the least help.

The Doctrine Map

Marc: Okay, I want to take a step back and see where everything we’ve studied this season actually shows up on this timeline. At the application stage—the constitutional gap. Kathleen is an initial applicant. Under Roth, she doesn’t have a property interest yet. She has an application. Whatever process she gets is statutory, not constitutional. So that’s why the initial and reconsideration stages can be paper-only with no hearing and no constitutional violation.

Gwen: Right. The Constitution is totally silent here.

Marc: Okay. Now, if Kathleen had been receiving benefits and the government tried to cut her off, Mathews would apply. She’d have a property interest. And the question would be how much process before termination. But because she’s applying rather than losing, the constitutional framework barely touches her. So now she’s at the hearing, and the inquisitorial model from our episode on neutral versus investigative decision makers comes into play. The ALJ is simultaneously developing the record and deciding the case. And all of the cognitive risks we talked about—like confirmation bias and the ownership effect—they are operating here.

Gwen: Yes. And Withrow v. Larkin says that’s completely constitutional.

Marc: Okay. At the Appeals Council, which is the internal agency review, quality control mechanisms are at play. The question of whether the agency is genuinely checking its own work, or is it just merely checking the box and affirming it.

Gwen: Right. And at federal court, we have judicial review based on substantial evidence and the question of how much deference courts are going to give to agency factfinding.

Marc: Okay. And none of those doctrines live in isolation. They’re all operating at different stages of the same journey.

Gwen: Yes. When we teach administrative law, we teach each doctrine as its own unit. Due process is one week. ALJs are another. Judicial review is done separately. But in Kathleen’s life, they’re all happening on this timeline. And the gaps between them—the stages where no doctrine clearly applies, where she’s just waiting, where the record is being shaped by people she may never meet—those gaps matter, just like the doctrines themselves.

A Different Timeline: Enforcement

Marc: Okay. So that’s what the timeline looks like when you’re the one asking for benefits. What does it look like when the government is the one with something to say?

Gwen: What we’ve talked about to this point is benefits adjudication. She is asking the government for something. Enforcement adjudication, where the government is coming after you, looks really different. That’s what we were talking about with Jarkesy.

Marc: So now the government is saying, “You did something wrong.”

Gwen: Right. We’ll run through this really briefly. Let’s imagine a company—we’ll call them Titan Chemical—and say they get an OSHA citation for a workplace safety violation. Their proposed penalty is potentially $150,000. And they’re going to go after the CEO too, and say that the CEO was personally responsible for the violation.

Marc: And so now the government is the one that’s initiating this process.

Gwen: Right. So now the power dynamics are different. In Kathleen’s case, she was the one trying to prove she deserved benefits. Here, the government has to prove the violation. Titan Chemical has lawyers from day one, probably. It has resources to fight. It has due process rights that kick in immediately because the government is trying to take something away from a private party.

Marc: So the full machinery of due process is engaged from the start.

Gwen: Right. And here’s where Jarkesy matters. If the enforcement action involves civil penalties, or as we saw in the last episode, potentially even if it just looks like some sort of traditional claim, they might need to be doing this in federal court, potentially with a jury.

Marc: So in the enforcement context, the constitutional stakes appear at the very beginning of the timeline, not at the end.

Gwen: Right. For Titan Chemical’s CEO, constitutional rights are the first thing their lawyers raise. “You can’t impose this penalty without a jury.” “This proceeding requires an Article III court.” The same doctrines, but completely different timing. Titan Chemical’s case might be resolved in months, whereas Kathleen’s might take years. Titan has sophisticated counsel from the start. Kathleen might not have any help until she’s already been denied twice, and potentially not even then. The enforcement respondent can often negotiate before any hearings happen, whereas the benefits claimant has to grind through every level.

Marc: And is that just because enforcement targets tend to have more money?

Gwen: So it’s part of it. But this is also structural. The government designed these benefit systems to process millions of claims efficiently. Volume is the constraint here. In enforcement, the government is choosing its cases. It has the resources for each case it chooses to take, even if it doesn’t have the resources for every case it might want to take.

Marc: Two very different versions of administrative adjudication.

Gwen: Yes, both are legitimate. But the timeline, the power dynamics, and the practical experience are almost unrecognizable from one to another.

Closing

Marc: Okay, so here’s what stays with me. Kathleen’s case was shaped long before she sat down in front of an ALJ. Which field office processed her application? Which doctor did the consultative exam? Which vocational expert was on the calendar that day? By the time she gets her hearing, most of the evidence already exists and most of the institutional judgments have already been made.

Gwen: Yes, and that’s true across the system, not just in Social Security. In enforcement cases, by the time you reach the ALJ, the initial denial and the reconsideration are already in the file. So this hearing is important, but it’s not operating on a blank slate.

Marc: Okay, so what actually determines the outcome once you’re in that room?

Gwen: Obviously there’s going to be a lot of different things here. We have the evidence in the record. We have the legal standard the judge is applying. We have the quality of the applicant’s representation. But including all of that, there are two threshold questions. Does the judge believe the person in front of them? And who has to prove what? Credibility and burden of proof. They’re not the whole story, but they’re where the analysis starts. And that is next up.

Outro

Marc: So that does it for today’s episode of Administrative Remedies. Thank you for joining us today. Please, if you enjoy this podcast and enjoy this episode, give us a like on Spotify, iTunes, or whatever platform you’re listening on. And be sure to tune in next time, where we’ll continue to dive into the contours of administrative law. Because remember—you can’t fix what you don’t understand.

Related Guides

Powered by Beamly