HALLEX I-2-1-60 in 2026: How to Get a Biased ALJ Off Your SSDI Case, the New 2024 Recusal Standards, and Why Appearance of Impropriety Is Now Codified

Published May 28, 2026 by Anthony Albert, Benefits Research Director at Disability Exchange. Reading time: 17 minutes.

You walk into your hearing, your representative pulls up the ALJ's name on the day of the hearing, and the heart sinks. This judge has a 12 percent approval rate. This judge has been written up in the news for hostile questioning of claimants. This judge once posted on social media that most disability claimants are exaggerating. Or worse: you find out that the ALJ used to work at the same law firm as the medical examiner SSA hired for your case.

You're not stuck. SSA's procedural manual HALLEX has a specific section on getting an ALJ off your case. HALLEX I-2-1-60 covers ALJ disqualification and recusal, and the section was significantly rewritten in August 2024 by Transmittal I-2-257. The rewrite added a stand-alone appearance of impropriety standard, expanded the procedures for handling recusal motions, and clarified what counts as a financial or personal interest in the case outcome.

This piece walks through HALLEX I-2-1-60 as it exists in 2026, the three mandatory disqualification grounds, the procedures for objecting before and during the hearing, the new appearance of impropriety standard codified in 2024, and the appeal path if the ALJ refuses to recuse. Most recusal motions get denied. But the issue often wins on appeal at the Appeals Council or in federal court when properly preserved.

The Regulatory Foundation

The regulations on ALJ disqualification are short. 20 CFR 404.940 (for Title II) and 416.1440 (for Title XVI) state that an ALJ "shall not conduct a hearing if he or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision." If the claimant objects, the ALJ "shall consider his or her withdrawal." If the ALJ refuses to withdraw, the claimant can present the objection to the Appeals Council "either when the Appeals Council reviews the decision or by requesting review."

That's the entire regulatory framework. HALLEX I-2-1-60 fills in the details: who reviews the motion, how the motion is presented, what counts as "interest in the matter," what counts as "prejudiced or partial," and how the procedural mechanics work before, during, and after the hearing.

The Three Mandatory Disqualification Grounds

HALLEX I-2-1-60, as rewritten in August 2024, identifies three categories of mandatory disqualification.

1. Financial Conflict Under 18 U.S.C. 208

18 U.S.C. 208 prohibits any federal officer or employee from participating in a "particular matter" if the employee has a financial interest in the matter or if the employee's spouse, minor child, general partner, or organization the employee serves as an officer of has a financial interest.

For SSDI hearings, this means an ALJ cannot decide a case if, for example:

• The ALJ owns stock in a party-employer that's the subject of the hearing.
• The ALJ's spouse works for the claimant's law firm.
• The ALJ's adult child is an employee of the medical provider whose opinion is at issue.
• The ALJ serves on the board of a non-profit that's funded by the claimant or the claimant's representative.

The 18 U.S.C. 208 standard is strict. There's no de minimis exception unless the financial interest falls into one of the categorical exemptions under 5 CFR 2640.

2. Prohibited Relationships Under 5 CFR 2635.502

5 CFR 2635.502 covers "personal and business relationships" that don't rise to the financial conflict level under 18 U.S.C. 208 but still warrant disqualification. The regulation identifies "covered relationships":

• A person with whom the ALJ has or seeks a business, contractual, or other financial relationship.
• A member of the ALJ's household.
• A relative with whom the ALJ has a close personal relationship.
• A person for whom the ALJ's spouse, parent, or dependent child is, to the ALJ's knowledge, serving as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, or employee.
• Any person for whom the ALJ has, within the last year, served as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, or employee.

When a covered relationship exists with a party to the case (the claimant) or the claimant's representative, the ALJ is required to disqualify unless an authorized agency designee has reviewed the matter and determined that a reasonable person would not question the ALJ's impartiality.

3. Appearance of Impropriety (Codified August 2024)

This is the big new piece. Before the August 2024 rewrite, appearance of impropriety was a soft, advisory consideration. HALLEX I-2-1-60 referred to it in passing. The 2024 rewrite codified it as a stand-alone mandatory disqualification ground, citing 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(8) and (b)(14) and 5 CFR 2635.502(a)(2).

The new definition: appearance of impropriety occurs when "reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the ALJ's honesty, integrity, objectivity, temperament, or fitness to serve as an ALJ is impaired."

That's a meaningful standard. The ALJ doesn't have to actually be biased. The question is what a reasonable observer would conclude after a reasonable inquiry into the facts. The 2024 transmittal gives several illustrative scenarios:

• An ALJ who has made public statements about a category of impairments (for example, dismissing fibromyalgia as a real disability).
• An ALJ who has a personal social media presence that includes derogatory comments about disability claimants in general.
• An ALJ whose past judicial conduct (in earlier roles or in earlier SSDI cases) has been publicly criticized for partiality.
• An ALJ with a recent, non-prohibited but visible relationship with a party that, while not strictly within 5 CFR 2635.502's coverage, would still cause a reasonable observer to question impartiality.

The 2024 rewrite also clarified what "interest in the matter pending for decision" means under 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440: a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the specific case before the ALJ. That clarification matters because earlier HALLEX language was ambiguous about whether general philosophical or policy positions could constitute "interest in the matter."

Section A: General Principles

HALLEX I-2-1-60 Section A sets out the general framework. The ALJ must be impartial and must avoid the appearance of impropriety. Disqualification is "not a matter of personal preference or reluctance." It requires "reasonable and proper grounds." That language was carried forward from the pre-2024 version and emphasizes that recusal is not a soft, optional process.

Section A also confirms there are no blanket recusals. Each case is evaluated on its own facts. A representative cannot say "Judge Smith recused from one of my cases in 2025 so she must recuse from all of mine." The recusal question turns on case-specific facts: a particular financial interest, a specific prior relationship with this claimant, a specific public statement bearing on this case's issues.

If an ALJ has a question about whether disqualification is required, the ALJ can consult the SSA Office of General Counsel ethics team through the ^OGC Ethics Questions email channel. The Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge is also available for consultation.

Section B: Procedure When the ALJ Initiates Disqualification

Sometimes the ALJ realizes the conflict themselves and disqualifies on their own initiative. Section B of HALLEX I-2-1-60 sets out the procedures.

Before the Notice of Hearing is sent. If the ALJ recognizes the disqualifying ground before the Notice of Hearing has been sent, no formal notice is required. The case is simply reassigned at the hearing office level.

After the Notice of Hearing is sent but before the hearing. If the disqualification arises after the Notice of Hearing has gone out, the ALJ provides written notice of the disqualification to the parties, the hearing is cancelled, and an amended Notice of Hearing is sent identifying the newly assigned ALJ. The new hearing date typically allows time for the parties to prepare, though continuances are common when reassignment causes a scheduling gap.

At the hearing. If the disqualifying fact emerges during the hearing itself, the ALJ states the disqualification on the record, suspends the hearing, and the case is reassigned. The transcript becomes part of the record for the new ALJ to review.

After the hearing. If the disqualifying fact emerges after the hearing has been held but before the decision is issued, the case is reassigned and the new ALJ consults HALLEX I-2-1-55 F.2 to decide whether a supplemental hearing is necessary or whether the existing record is sufficient for the new decision. In most cases involving post-hearing disqualification, a supplemental hearing is required because credibility findings depend on observing the claimant.

Section C: When the Claimant Objects

This is the section most claimants and representatives use. Section C of HALLEX I-2-1-60 governs the procedure when the claimant objects to the assigned ALJ.

Timing. The claimant must object "at the earliest opportunity." The 2024 rewrite tightened this language. Practical earliest opportunity points include:

• When the Notice of Hearing identifies the assigned ALJ for the first time.
• When pre-hearing discovery reveals a disqualifying fact (financial conflict, prior relationship).
• When the ALJ makes a statement at a pre-hearing conference that raises appearance of impropriety concerns.

Delays in objecting weaken the recusal claim and can lead to a finding that the objection was untimely or strategically delayed.

Form of the objection. The objection should be in writing, addressed to the assigned ALJ with a copy to the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge. State the factual grounds, cite HALLEX I-2-1-60 and the specific regulatory ground (financial conflict, prohibited relationship, or appearance of impropriety), and attach any supporting documentary evidence (news articles, social media screenshots, prior court decisions, financial disclosure records, etc.).

The ALJ's ruling. The assigned ALJ rules on the objection. If the ALJ recuses, the case is reassigned per Section D. If the ALJ declines, the ALJ "shall set forth in writing or on the record the reasons for declining to disqualify" themselves. The decision on the recusal motion goes into the jurisdiction or procedural history section of the eventual hearing decision.

Going forward to hearing. If the ALJ refuses to recuse, the claimant must still proceed with the hearing. Refusing to participate forfeits the right to a decision on the merits and effectively concedes the claim. The claimant should reiterate the objection on the record at the start of the hearing to make sure the transcript clearly preserves the issue for appeal.

Section D: When a New ALJ Takes Over

Section D covers the new ALJ's responsibilities after a disqualification. The newly assigned ALJ must mention the prior disqualification in the opening statement procedural history at the new hearing. The new ALJ does not have to discuss the reasons for the prior recusal, just acknowledge that the original assignment was changed.

If the prior ALJ had already held a hearing before recusing, the new ALJ consults HALLEX I-2-1-55 F.2 to determine whether a supplemental hearing is needed. Factors include:

• Whether credibility findings depend on observing the claimant.
• Whether vocational expert testimony was taken and is still relevant.
• Whether medical expert testimony was taken and is still relevant.
• Whether the recusal grounds suggest the prior record was tainted.

In most cases involving post-hearing disqualification, a supplemental hearing is required because the original record was developed under a tainted process and the new ALJ needs to make independent credibility findings.

Worked Examples

Example 1: Financial Interest in an Employer-Party

Sarah, a claimant in California, alleges disability due to a work injury at a regional grocery chain. The chain is an employer-party in her case (her former employer's insurer is involved in the workers compensation interaction). After the Notice of Hearing identifies Judge X, Sarah's attorney searches Judge X's public financial disclosure and discovers Judge X owns stock in the regional grocery chain valued at roughly $40,000.

Sarah's attorney files a written objection citing 18 U.S.C. 208 and HALLEX I-2-1-60 Section C. The motion includes a copy of the financial disclosure and a brief explanation of why the grocery chain is a party-equivalent in the case. Judge X reviews the motion, consults the OGC ethics team, and recuses. The case is reassigned. A new Notice of Hearing identifies Judge Y, and the hearing proceeds.

Example 2: Prior Attorney-Client Relationship

Mike, a claimant in Texas, is represented by Attorney B. Attorney B was a non-attorney representative at Judge Z's law firm before Judge Z became an ALJ five years ago. Attorney B believes the prior firm relationship is a covered relationship under 5 CFR 2635.502.

Attorney B files a written objection. Judge Z reviews and consults OGC ethics. The OGC ethics opinion concludes that the five-year gap puts the prior relationship outside the strict "within the last year" trigger of 5 CFR 2635.502, but the prior business relationship still raises appearance of impropriety concerns under the new 2024 standard. Judge Z recuses voluntarily under the appearance-of-impropriety ground.

Example 3: Public Statements Indicating Prejudgment

Diana, a claimant in Florida with a fibromyalgia primary diagnosis, is assigned to Judge W. Diana's attorney pulls Judge W's published decisions from the last two years and finds three decisions where Judge W referred to fibromyalgia as "a soft science diagnosis" and discounted treating provider opinions on fibromyalgia in conclusory terms. The attorney also finds a recorded continuing legal education panel where Judge W said fibromyalgia claimants "almost always have other issues going on."

The attorney files a written objection citing the appearance-of-impropriety standard. Judge W declines to recuse on the record at the hearing, stating the prior decisions reflect "legitimate evidentiary skepticism" and not prejudgment. The attorney reiterates the objection on the record and proceeds with the hearing.

Judge W issues an unfavorable decision. Diana's attorney files Form HA-520 with the Appeals Council, raising the non-disqualification as one of three grounds for review. The Appeals Council grants review under HALLEX I-3-3-2 and remands for a new hearing before a different ALJ, citing the cumulative weight of Judge W's public statements as creating a reasonable appearance of impartiality concern under the 2024 standard.

The Appeals Council Review Path

If the ALJ refuses to recuse and issues an unfavorable decision, the claimant's primary remedy is Appeals Council review. The Appeals Council reviews recusal denials under HALLEX I-3-3-2 (general standards) and HALLEX I-3-2-25 (specific procedures), applying 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 standards. SSR 13-1p sets out the agency-wide procedures for handling ALJ bias allegations and is the controlling ruling on the merits standard.

The Appeals Council can:

• Deny review (most common outcome) and let the ALJ decision stand. The claimant then proceeds to federal court if desired.
• Grant review and affirm on the recusal issue but remand for other reasons (less common).
• Grant review and reverse the recusal denial, vacate the decision, and remand for a new hearing before a different ALJ (the optimal outcome for the claimant).
• Grant review and address the recusal issue head-on with a fully favorable decision (rare).

The Appeals Council remand pattern on recusal issues tracks our broader analysis at Appeals Council remand patterns. About 22 to 25 percent of cases that allege ALJ bias get remanded by the Appeals Council, which is significantly above the overall Appeals Council remand rate of around 11 to 13 percent.

The Federal Court Path

If the Appeals Council denies review, the next step is federal court under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Bias and recusal arguments in federal court are reviewed under both the substantial evidence standard and the legal-error standard. The legal-error standard is more useful here because bias claims fundamentally allege the ALJ applied an unfair process, not that the substantive evidence was insufficient.

Federal courts have remanded SSDI cases for new hearings based on ALJ bias in published opinions. The leading cases focus on the cumulative weight of the ALJ's conduct: hostile questioning, conclusory rejection of treating provider opinions, dismissive treatment of subjective symptoms, and patterns across multiple decisions. A single instance of impatience or skepticism in a hearing rarely supports federal court remand. A pattern across the record can.

For appearance-of-impropriety arguments specifically, the 2024 HALLEX rewrite has given federal courts new textual ammunition. Claimants who preserve the appearance argument at the ALJ level, the Appeals Council level, and finally in district court have a stronger record than those who only raised actual bias.

State-by-State Practice Patterns

Recusal practice is national under HALLEX I-2-1-60, but hearing office patterns do vary:

• California hearing offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Oakland have higher rates of voluntary ALJ recusal when financial conflicts are properly documented. ALJs in these offices tend to consult OGC ethics more frequently.
• Texas Dallas and Houston ODARs are stricter on the timing rule. Late objections (filed at the hearing rather than at the Notice of Hearing point) face significant pushback.
• Florida Miami and Orlando hearing offices have seen several high-profile recusal cases involving public statements by ALJs in recent years and have generally moved toward more cautious application of the appearance standard.
• New York ODARs are sophisticated on appearance arguments and have a longer track record of ALJ recusals tied to prior counsel relationships.
• Pennsylvania Philadelphia and Pittsburgh handle high volumes of SSDI cases and have well-developed local practice on the procedural mechanics of recusal motions.

Practical Tips for Filing the Motion

If you're considering a recusal motion in 2026, here are practical tips that improve your chances:

1. Get the documentary evidence first. Don't file the motion until you have concrete supporting evidence: financial disclosure records, news articles, prior court decisions, social media screenshots. A motion based on rumor or general dissatisfaction will be denied summarily.
2. Cite the 2024 transmittal specifically. Reference Transmittal I-2-257 and the rewrite of HALLEX I-2-1-60. ALJs and Appeals Council judges will respond better to a motion that demonstrates familiarity with the current standard.
3. Don't make it personal. The motion should be analytical, not accusatory. "The ALJ's prior published statements on fibromyalgia create an appearance of impropriety under the codified 2024 standard" reads professionally. "Judge X hates fibromyalgia claimants" does not.
4. Cite the regulatory ground specifically. Identify whether you're invoking 18 U.S.C. 208 (financial), 5 CFR 2635.502 (relationship), or the appearance-of-impropriety standard. Don't blur the categories.
5. File early. "Earliest opportunity" is a real timing rule. The Notice of Hearing is usually the trigger point. Wait until the hearing and you'll get pushback on timing.
6. Preserve the issue on the record. Even if the motion is denied, restate the objection on the record at the hearing. The transcript needs to clearly show the objection, the denial, and the reasons given.
7. Coordinate with your representative. Recusal motions are often best filed by the representative rather than the claimant pro se. The procedural requirements and citations are technical.

What If the ALJ Recuses?

If the recusal motion is granted, the case is reassigned. The claimant gets a new Notice of Hearing identifying the new ALJ. The new hearing typically takes 30 to 90 days to schedule depending on the hearing office backlog. Most cases proceed normally from there.

The new ALJ will mention the prior recusal in the opening statement procedural history at the new hearing but will not discuss the reasons. The merits go forward as if the case were starting fresh, though pre-hearing exhibits and prior submissions remain in the record.

Bottom Line

Most ALJ recusal motions get denied. ALJs view recusal as a serious step requiring concrete grounds, not generalized dissatisfaction with prior rulings or perceived attitudes. The August 2024 rewrite of HALLEX I-2-1-60 gave claimants new textual ammunition with the codified appearance of impropriety standard, but the practical bar remains high at the hearing level.

The realistic strategy is twofold. First, file the motion when the grounds are real, the documentary support is in hand, and the timing is right. Second, preserve the issue carefully for Appeals Council review and federal court review. Most successful bias arguments win on appeal, not at the hearing level. The 2024 rewrite has tilted appellate review slightly more favorable to claimants on appearance-of-impropriety claims, and that shift is worth using.

If you're heading into an ALJ hearing and you suspect bias, don't sit on it. Get a representative involved, document the grounds, file the motion before the hearing, and build a record that can carry the issue to the Appeals Council and beyond.