In the case of Califano v. Sanders in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual does not have a constitutional right to judicial review of decisions made by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The plaintiff, Mr. Sanders, had been denied disability benefits and his request for reconsideration was also rejected by SSA's Appeals Council. He then sought judicial review but was told he could not challenge this decision under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act because it wasn't a "final decision" as defined by law. The court held that while administrative actions are generally subject to judicial review, there is no presumption in favor of such review when Congress has decided otherwise - which they did with Section 205(g). Therefore, unless there is a constitutional issue or violation involved (which there wasn't in this case), individuals cannot seek court reviews for SSA decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Califano v. Sanders, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He argued that it was not Congress' intention to exclude Social Security claimants from judicial review under this section. The APA provides a right to judicial review for any person "adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action." According to Justice Brennan, there is no reason why this should not apply to Social Security claimants who are dissatisfied with final decisions made by administrative law judges and appeals councils within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had intended such an exclusion, they would have explicitly stated so in legislation. Therefore, he believed that denying these individuals access to federal courts was unjustified.