| Litigants: | Carr v. Saul |
| Arguedate: | March 3 |
| Argueyear: | 2021 |
| Decidedate: | April 22 |
| Decideyear: | 2021 |
| Fullname: | 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 |
| Usvol: | 593 |
| Uspage: | ___ |
| Docket: | 19-1442 |
| Docket2: | 20-105 |
| Oralargument: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-1442 |
| 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. |
| Majority: | Sotomayor |
| Joinmajority: | 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) |
| Joinconcurrence: | Gorsuch, Barrett |
| Concurrence2: | Breyer (in part and in the judgment) |
| Lawsapplied: | 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.