Supreme Court agrees to map out path for veteran benefit challenges 

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court put an Army veteran’s fight over disability benefits on its docket Monday, agreeing to settle a lower court dispute over where such challenges should be heard.

Floyd Johnson served in the U.S. Army from 1983 to 1985. Over three decades later, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder while incarcerated in Florida for committing several felonies.

Veterans Affairs gave his disability an 80% rating — a classification of an individual’s ability to function under ordinary conditions of daily life. However, since he was incarcerated for a felony conviction, his corresponding benefits were limited to a 10% disability rating.

According to the government, the rating deduction reflected Congress’ concerns with providing government benefits to individuals who are already being provided for by taxpayer funding of penal institutions.

Johnson described the results as compensating a veteran whose arm was amputated under the same rating as a servicemember who lost an eyebrow. He brought a constitutional challenge to the statute in a federal court in Florida, arguing the law violated the bill of attainder clause and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

Lower courts are split over whether the judiciary can settle such claims.

In 1974, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Johnson v. Robinson held that federal district courts could decide the constitutionality of veterans’ benefits legislation. Over a decade later, Congress enacted the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, creating a pathway to obtain judicial review of individual benefits decisions.

Under the VJRA, individual benefits decisions are accepted or denied by a regional office. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals can review benefits determinations, which then can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Any further adjudication goes to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

A federal district court dismissed Johnson’s suit; however, in doing so, the court determined it had jurisdiction to settle such claims. The 11th Circuit reversed, holding the challenge had to follow the path provided by the VJRA.

Johnson pushed the Supreme Court to review his appeal, arguing that the VJRA did not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over constitutional claims.

Because the lower courts are divided on the issue, Johnson said the justices needed to intervene.

“A veteran’s access to the courts should not vary depending on where he lives,” Johnson wrote.

While the government supported the 11th Circuit’s conclusion, it agreed the Supreme Court needed to settle the circuit split.

“The court of appeals’ decision is correct,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote. “But that decision conflicts with precedent of two other circuits; the question presented is recurring and important; and this case is a suitable vehicle for resolving the question. This court’s review is therefore warranted.”

The Supreme Court will likely hear the appeal during its next term.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social