Sixth Circuit Clarifies Proper Remands Under § 405(g)

Sometimes Social Security appeals feel routine—until a procedural issue forces everyone to slow down. The Sixth Circuit did exactly that in Follen v. Commissioner of Social Security (No. 25-3135, Feb. 11, 2026), issuing a reminder that § 405(g) only authorizes two kinds of remands—and courts cannot invent a third. 

What Happened in Follen

After answering the complaint, the Commissioner moved for a remand so the ALJ could “further articulate” the persuasiveness of the evidence—without conceding reversible error.

The claimant agreed a remand was appropriate, but asked the court to award benefits instead.

The district court entered an order labeled as a Sentence Four remand, directing further proceedings and a new decision. But the court:

• Did not affirm, modify, or reverse the ALJ’s denial

• Did not identify a specific legal defect

• Did not make predicate findings for Sentence Six

  
  

That gap mattered.

The Sixth Circuit’s Holding

The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded—not because of the disability merits, but because the district court’s order didn’t comply with the statute’s remand structure.

The district court’s order fit neither Sentence Four nor Sentence Six, and district courts have no inherent authority to create a third category of remand. 

The Core Framework Under § 405(g)

Sentence Six Remand

A Sentence Six remand is procedural and does not decide the merits. Typically, it requires specific statutory predicates (like qualifying new evidence) and the court generally retains jurisdiction.

Key features:

• No merits ruling

• Predicate findings required

• Court retains jurisdiction

• Not immediately appealable (because it’s not a final merits judgment)

  
  

Sentence Four Remand

A Sentence Four remand requires a merits judgment and entry of a final judgment that affirms, modifies, or reverses the agency decision (often with a remand attached).

Key features:

• Merits determination required

• Final judgment entered (affirm/modify/reverse)

• Immediately appealable

• Starts key post-judgment timelines (including fee-related deadlines)

  
  

Why Follen Matters for Practitioners

This isn’t a formatting nit. Choosing (and supporting) the correct remand vehicle affects:

• Appellate jurisdiction and finality

• EAJA timing and fee strategy

• How the judgment is framed (and what it authorizes)

• Whether the court retains jurisdiction

  
  

Practical Takeaways for Briefing Remand Motions

If you want a Sentence Four remand, don’t assume the label does the work. Build the record for it:

• Identify the specific legal error (e.g., failure to follow a regulation, improper evaluation of medical opinion evidence, inadequate explanation)

• Ask the court to vacate/reverse/modify (even if the remedy is “vacate and remand”)

• Ensure the proposed order includes the required merits judgment language

  
  

If you’re proceeding under Sentence Six, make sure the motion and order address the statutory predicates and the jurisdictional posture.

Q&A: Fast Answers for the Most Common § 405(g) Remand Questions

Q: Can a district court remand “just to clean up the explanation” without finding error?

A: Not under Sentence Four. Follen reinforces that Sentence Four requires a merits judgment—meaning the court must determine the Commissioner erred in some respect and enter a final judgment.

Q: What’s the biggest risk of an unclear remand order?

A: Jurisdictional confusion—especially about whether there’s a final, appealable judgment and when key deadlines begin to run.

Q: What should a proper Sentence Four remand order include?

A: A final judgment that affirms, modifies, or reverses the agency decision (often phrased as “vacated and remanded”), tied to an identified legal defect.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.