Generally, a remand order is an interlocutory order that does not divest a court of jurisdiction over a case. Absent a clear statement to the contrary, legislation should not ordinarily be interpreted to oust a federal court's equitable power, or its jurisdiction over a pending case. Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 requires use of the "medical improvement" standard in continuing disability reviews. Where statute provides that "[t]he Secretary shall notify [an individual class member] by certified mail that he may request a review of" his disqualification, district court has authority to establish the content of the notice. Orders requiring SSA to issue specific notices and to follow certain procedures for determining class membership were like an injunction and were appealable on an interlocutory basis.

Federal courts may not review some types of "final" SSI decisions of ALJs.

Absent a colorable constitutional claim not present here, a district court does not have jurisdiction to review the Secretary's discretionary decision not to reopen an earlier adjudication. Appeal barred by res judicata where, even though claimant's second application was not identical to the first and additional medical reports were submitted, the claim for disability in both cases was based on essentially the same condition.

District Court does lack jurisdiction when claimant fails to file a timely complaint (60 days) after notice of Secretary's final decision.

"Final decision" of the Secretary generally means the initial substantive decision of the Secretary on the benefits claim. 405(g) cannot be read to authorize judicial review of alleged abuses of agency discretion in refusing to reopen claims for social security benefits. This is so principally because the "final decision of the Secretary" refers to the initial substantive decision of the Secretary on the benefits claim. District Court was without jurisdiction to review dismissal of Rios' third claim for benefits when dismissal was based on grounds of res judicata and insufficient new evidence.

An Appeals Council order remanding a case to the ALJ for further proceedings is not a final decision appealable to the federal courts. Federal court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Court leaves open possibility of exceptions where Appeals Council's action is challenged on constitutional or other procedural grounds, or where there is grave hardship.