Sentence Four vs Sentence Six Remand in 2026: How Federal Courts Send SSDI Cases Back to SSA, the EAJA Fee Difference, and Why It Decides Your Back Pay

By Anthony Albert, Benefits Research Director at Disability Exchange · Published June 4, 2026

You lost at the Appeals Council. You filed a civil action in federal district court under 42 USC 405(g). The court ruled. The order says your case is remanded. Now what? The answer depends on a single word buried in the order: sentence four or sentence six. The difference between the two controls when your attorney can collect fees, whether the court keeps your case on its docket, how new evidence gets handled, and how long the agency has to issue a new decision.

Most people never read this part of their court order carefully because the lawyer handles it. But if you're a claimant trying to track your own case, or you're an attorney trying to keep your EAJA application on time, this is the doctrine you have to know cold.

The statute in plain English

42 USC 405(g) is the federal court review statute for Social Security cases. The provision is a long single subsection broken into multiple sentences. The fourth sentence reads, in substance, that the court has power to enter judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner's decision with or without remanding for a rehearing. The sixth sentence reads, in substance, that the court may remand for additional evidence either on the Commissioner's pre-answer motion or on a claimant's showing of new material evidence plus good cause.

The Supreme Court read these two sentences as defining two different paths. The Justice Department's own Civil Resource Manual 94 puts it this way: under sentence four, a district court may remand in conjunction with a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner's decision. Under sentence six, the district court may remand in light of additional evidence without making any substantive ruling.

Side-by-side: the two remands compared

Sentence four: the merits remand

This is the more common path. The claimant files a civil action under 42 USC 405(g) challenging a final agency decision. The district court reviews the administrative record under the substantial evidence standard. It finds a legal error: maybe the ALJ misapplied a regulation, maybe the ALJ ignored a treating physician's medical opinion in violation of 20 CFR 404.1520c, maybe the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment isn't supported by substantial evidence under SSR 96-8p. The court reverses, modifies, or affirms-and-remands, and enters judgment.

That judgment is final under 28 USC 1291. The district court's involvement ends. The case file gets sent back to SSA. The Appeals Council issues a new remand order under 20 CFR 404.977 implementing the district court's instructions. The hearing office schedules a new hearing in front of an ALJ. The ALJ takes the court's instructions, develops any new evidence that needs to be developed, and issues a new decision.

What the ALJ has to do on a sentence four remand

HALLEX I-2-8-18 controls. The ALJ is bound by the law of the case, which means the legal rulings the district court made are binding on the agency in the same proceeding. The ALJ can take additional evidence and make new factual findings, but cannot relitigate the legal points the court already decided. If the ALJ ignores the district court's instructions, the claimant has a path back to federal court because the new decision can be challenged on the theory that the agency failed to follow the law of the case.

What happens after the new ALJ decision

If the new ALJ decision is favorable, the case ends. SSA calculates back pay and starts paying benefits. If the new decision is unfavorable, the claimant has 30 days under 20 CFR 404.984 to file written exceptions with the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council does not assume jurisdiction, or if it assumes jurisdiction and issues an adverse decision, the new decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner. The claimant can then file a new civil action in federal court within 60 days under 42 USC 405(g).

Sentence six: the evidence remand

Sentence six is narrower and procedurally different. There are exactly two ways to get one:

1. Commissioner's pre-answer motion. If the Commissioner files a motion to remand before filing an answer to the complaint, the court can grant it as a sentence six remand for good cause shown. This usually happens when SSA realizes the administrative record is incomplete or has a procedural defect that needs fixing.
2. Claimant's new evidence showing. If the claimant identifies evidence that wasn't in the administrative record, can show that evidence is material, and can show good cause for not presenting it to the agency earlier, the court can remand under sentence six. The claimant has to satisfy all three prongs.

The key feature of a sentence six remand is that the court doesn't rule on the merits. It doesn't say the ALJ was right or wrong. It just sends the case back to take the additional evidence and report back. The district court keeps the case on its docket the whole time. The court doesn't enter a final judgment.

What new and material evidence means here

The Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) and the circuit courts after Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) have built a fairly demanding standard. New means the evidence didn't exist in the administrative record at the time of the ALJ decision. Material means it would reasonably change the outcome. Good cause means the claimant has a legitimate reason for not getting the evidence into the agency record earlier.

Courts are skeptical of new evidence that the claimant could have produced before. Evidence created after the ALJ hearing is generally easier to qualify because it didn't exist at the time. Evidence from a doctor the claimant didn't see until after the hearing also tends to qualify. Evidence that was in existence before the hearing but wasn't presented usually loses on good cause.

What the agency does on a sentence six remand

The agency takes the specific evidence identified by the court and weighs it in light of the existing record. HALLEX I-2-8-18 calls this a Type II remand and treats it separately from a sentence four remand. The ALJ doesn't necessarily have to hold a new hearing. The agency develops the new evidence, considers it together with the prior record, and issues a new decision. The new decision goes back to the district court, which then enters a final judgment based on the combined record.

The EAJA fee mechanics: why this controls real money

The Equal Access to Justice Act under 28 USC 2412(d) lets a prevailing claimant recover attorney fees from the federal government in Social Security cases. The hourly rate is statutorily capped at $125 per hour adjusted for cost of living. In 2026 most circuits apply EAJA rates in the range of $235 to $245 per hour, depending on the year of work and the circuit's COLA calculation.

The application deadline is 30 days after the judgment becomes not appealable. For a sentence four remand, the judgment becomes not appealable 60 days after entry of judgment because the United States is a party under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). So the practical EAJA window after a sentence four remand is 60 days plus 30 days, a total of 90 days from the date the district court enters the remand judgment. Miss that window and the fee is gone.

For a sentence six remand, there is no clock until after the agency completes the post-remand work and the district court enters a final judgment. That final judgment is what starts the 90 day window. It can be years after the original remand. The Supreme Court in Schaefer made this absolutely clear because attorneys and Social Security claimants had been losing fees on the wrong timing assumptions.

Worked example one: classic sentence four remand

Maria, 49, lives in California. She had a 2024 ALJ hearing denying SSDI on the basis that her residual functional capacity allowed sedentary work. The Appeals Council denied review in October 2024. She filed a civil action in the Eastern District of California in November 2024 under 42 USC 405(g).

In May 2026 the district court grants her motion for summary judgment. The court finds the ALJ failed to evaluate her treating rheumatologist's medical opinion under 20 CFR 404.1520c and that the ALJ's RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. The court reverses, remands under sentence four, and enters judgment. Her attorney has 90 days from the May 2026 judgment to file the EAJA application. The Appeals Council issues a remand order to the ALJ in July 2026. The new ALJ hearing is held in November 2026. The ALJ issues a favorable decision in December 2026. Back pay runs from Maria's original 2022 alleged onset date, less the 5 month waiting period.

Two fee streams kick in. The EAJA fee, applied for in August 2026, covers attorney time at the EAJA rate for the federal court work. The 42 USC 406(b) fee, applied for after SSA calculates the back pay award, is capped at 25 percent of past-due benefits. Per Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), counsel has to refund the smaller of the two fees to Maria.

Worked example two: sentence six with new medical evidence

David, 56, lives in Texas. The ALJ denied his SSDI claim in 2023 for severe lumbar degenerative disc disease. The Appeals Council denied review in 2024. He filed a civil action in the Northern District of Texas in 2024 under 42 USC 405(g).

While the case is pending in federal court, David is finally able to get a full functional capacity evaluation done in early 2025 with an occupational therapist who specializes in spine cases. The FCE didn't exist at the time of the 2023 hearing and David documents that he tried unsuccessfully to schedule it during the agency proceedings but couldn't get insurance authorization. The FCE shows he can't sustain even sedentary work for a full 8 hour day.

David's counsel files a motion under sentence six asking the court to remand to take the FCE. The court finds new (didn't exist at hearing), material (would reasonably change the RFC finding), and good cause (insurance barrier documented). The court remands under sentence six and retains jurisdiction. The agency develops the FCE evidence in late 2025, holds a supplemental hearing in early 2026, and issues a partially favorable decision finding David disabled as of an amended onset date. The new decision goes back to the district court. The court enters a final judgment in May 2026 affirming the partially favorable decision. The EAJA clock starts on that May 2026 final judgment, not on the original remand order from 2024.

What both remands have in common

Some features are shared:

• Both come from 42 USC 405(g). No other statute authorizes federal court remand to SSA in disability cases.
• Neither remand is a guarantee that the claimant will win benefits. The agency still has to make its own decision on remand and that decision can still be unfavorable.
• Both remands trigger the Appeals Council's role under 20 CFR 404.977 to channel the case to an ALJ with appropriate instructions.
• Both remands preserve the claimant's right to appeal the new agency decision back to federal court.
• Neither remand affects the underlying back pay calculation. Back pay runs from the original alleged onset date subject to the 12 month SSDI retroactivity cap and the 5 month waiting period.
• Both remands implicate the EAJA fee question, but with completely different timing rules.

How to read your own court order

The disposition line of the order is where the answer lives. Look for one of these patterns:

• Sentence four indicators: "reversed and remanded," "the Commissioner's decision is reversed," "judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff," "the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." The order will also have a separate judgment document. If the court entered a Rule 58 judgment, it's a sentence four remand.
• Sentence six indicators: "the case is remanded under sentence six," "for the limited purpose of taking additional evidence," "the court retains jurisdiction," "the Commissioner shall file a status report within 60 days," "no final judgment is entered at this time." Pre-answer remand language like "the Commissioner's motion to remand is granted" almost always signals sentence six.

What courts have said since Shalala v. Schaefer

The post-Schaefer caselaw has clarified a few recurring issues:

• A district court cannot remand outside the sentence four / sentence six framework. Schaefer foreclosed creative remand theories. If the order doesn't fit one of the two paths, it's procedurally defective.
• A district court can convert a pending sentence six remand into a sentence four remand after the agency reports back, by ruling on the merits and entering judgment at that point.
• An order that says "remanded" without specifying which sentence is interpreted by the court of appeals based on substance. If the order rules on the merits, it's sentence four. If the order takes no position on the merits and orders further evidence development, it's sentence six.
• A Commissioner's motion to remand made AFTER answering the complaint cannot be granted under sentence six. After answer, the only remand path is sentence four with a substantive ruling.
• The 30 day EAJA deadline under 28 USC 2412(d) runs from when the judgment becomes "not appealable," which for the government is 60 days after entry of judgment under FRAP 4(a)(1)(B).

How the 2026 remand environment looks

NOSSCR's Circuit Court Considerations reporting for 2026 shows remand rates varying significantly by circuit. The Ninth Circuit historically remands SSA cases at the highest rate, often above 55 percent of cases decided on the merits. The Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits also produce above-average remand rates. The Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits remand at lower rates, often below 40 percent. None of these numbers tell a claimant whether their specific case will be remanded, but they show why some districts are friendlier territory for federal court appeals than others.

The average time from civil action filing to district court ruling in 2026 runs roughly 14 to 20 months in most districts. After a sentence four remand, the typical time to a new ALJ decision is another 9 to 18 months. Total round trip from federal complaint to final agency decision after remand: 23 to 38 months in most cases. The math is brutal but the back pay math at the end is often substantial because of the long pendency.

The 406(b) and EAJA stacking rule

Both fee mechanisms can apply to the same case. The 42 USC 406(b) fee, capped at 25 percent of past-due benefits, is paid out of the back pay award. The EAJA fee is paid by the government. Under Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, when both fees are awarded, the attorney has to refund the smaller of the two to the claimant. So if the EAJA fee is $8,500 and the 406(b) fee is $20,000, counsel keeps $20,000 from the 406(b) and refunds the $8,500 EAJA amount to the claimant. The claimant's net cost for federal court representation usually ends up zero or close to it, because the EAJA reimbursement offsets the 406(b) deduction.

Strategic implications for claimants

If you're in federal court right now, three things actually matter to you as the claimant, not just to your attorney:

1. Know which sentence remand you got. Read your order. If you don't know, ask your attorney to tell you. The answer determines what comes next.
2. Track the timeline on whichever remand applies. Sentence four sends you back to the Appeals Council and then to a new ALJ hearing within roughly 9 to 18 months. Sentence six keeps the case under the federal court's eye and is usually quicker, 6 to 9 months.
3. Don't sign new fee agreements during the remand period without understanding the EAJA and 406(b) stacking rule. Reputable Social Security attorneys handle this correctly, but cases occasionally get transferred between firms during long remand periods and the fee documentation can get tangled.

What to do if your case is at the Appeals Council

If you haven't yet filed a civil action and your case is sitting at the Appeals Council, your decision tree is different. The Appeals Council can grant review, deny review, or remand to the ALJ on its own under 20 CFR 404.967. Most cases get a denial of review. When that happens, you have 60 days under 20 CFR 404.981 to file a civil action in federal district court. That's the doorway into the sentence four / sentence six universe. Before that doorway, none of this doctrine applies. After that doorway, all of it does.

Frequently asked questions

What's the difference between a sentence four and a sentence six remand in plain language?

A sentence four remand is a ruling on the merits. The federal court reviewed the administrative record, decided the ALJ got something wrong as a matter of law or substantial evidence, and sent the case back to fix the error. The district court is finished and enters a final judgment. A sentence six remand is not a ruling on the merits. The court is sending the case back to take additional evidence, either because the Commissioner asked for a remand before filing an answer, or because the claimant showed new material evidence with good cause for not producing it earlier. The court keeps the case on its docket and waits for the agency to report back.

Where do these two remands come from?

Both sit in the same statute, 42 USC 405(g), which governs federal court review of Social Security decisions. The fourth sentence of that subsection authorizes a remand combined with a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner's decision. The sixth sentence authorizes a remand without a substantive ruling, either on the Commissioner's pre-answer motion or on a claimant's showing of new and material evidence plus good cause. The Supreme Court in Shalala v. Schaefer held in 1993 that these are the exclusive remand pathways, and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991), is where the framework was first set out clearly.

Why does the remand type matter for attorney fees?

Because the EAJA fee clock under 28 USC 2412(d) runs from the date a final judgment becomes not appealable. A sentence four remand is a final judgment under Shalala v. Schaefer, so the EAJA application is due 60 days after entry of judgment plus 30 days, total 90 days. A sentence six remand is not a final judgment, so no EAJA clock runs at all until after the post-remand work finishes and the court enters a final judgment then. Missing the sentence four 90 day window is one of the most common ways attorneys lose otherwise-winnable EAJA fee applications.

Can the same case use both sentence four and sentence six during litigation?

Yes, in sequence. A claimant might bring a federal action, present new evidence to the district court, and get a sentence six remand to develop the new evidence at the agency. The agency develops, decides, and reports back. If the post-remand decision is still adverse and the district court then rules on the merits, the resulting order is a sentence four disposition. The court enters a final judgment at that point. The two remands serve different purposes and are sometimes used in tandem to get the right evidentiary record in front of the right decision-maker.

What does new and material evidence mean for a sentence six remand?

Two requirements. New means the evidence wasn't in the administrative record at the time of the ALJ decision. Material means it would reasonably change the outcome. The claimant also has to show good cause for not presenting the evidence to the agency earlier. Good cause is usually established by showing the evidence didn't exist before, that the claimant tried to obtain it but couldn't, or that the agency improperly excluded it from the record. Courts apply a strict standard. Evidence that simply could have been presented earlier rarely qualifies.

Does a sentence four remand mean I won my case?

Not necessarily. A sentence four remand reverses the ALJ decision and sends the case back for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ has to follow the district court's instructions but still has to issue a new decision. That decision can still be unfavorable. Many sentence four remands result in eventual favorable decisions because the legal error the court identified usually points the ALJ toward a different result, but the remand itself is not a guarantee of benefits. The win rate after a sentence four remand varies by circuit but typically falls between 50 and 65 percent for the claimant.

How long does a remand take in 2026?

Sentence four remands typically run 9 to 18 months from the district court order to a new ALJ decision. The Appeals Council issues the remand order under 20 CFR 404.977 within roughly 60 days of receiving the court order, then the hearing office schedules a new hearing under HALLEX I-2-1-1. Sentence six remands move on different timing because the agency only has to develop the specific evidence the court identified and report back. They sometimes finish in 6 to 9 months. National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives reporting suggests average remand cycle times have grown by roughly 15 percent since 2023 due to ALJ vacancies.