WASHINGTON (CN) — The government made a mistake in its interpretation of an entitlement program limiting education benefits for veterans who served in multiple wars, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
After serving three terms in the military before and after 9/11, James Rudisill claimed the government was shorting his entitlements by forcing him to choose which one he wanted. A divided Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Rudisill is entitled to each of the two educational benefits he qualified for, up to a total of 48 months, in whichever order he chooses.
Members of the military who served before and after 9/11 are entitled to both Montgomery and 9/11 GI benefits for higher education. There is a limit that prevents veterans from receiving more than 48 months of entitlements.
However, the government attempted to further limit Rudisill’s entitlement, claiming before the Supreme Court in November that his Post-9/11 benefits were limited to the amount of his unused Montgomery benefits because of a provision to coordinate entitlements in the newer bill. Vivek Suri, assistant to the solicitor general at the Justice Department, said this interpretation followed Congress’ intent.
"We cannot agree that, to receive Post-9/11 benefits, a servicemember in Rudisill’s situation must elect them via §3327," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the majority opinion. "The statute simply does not say that a servicemember with more than one entitlement receives Post-9/11 benefits only by making a §3327(a) election."
Rudisill began his service in 2000 before being honorably discharged in 2002. Two years later, he reenlisted as a member of the Army National Guard and deployed to Iraq. In 2005, he was honorably discharged for a second time. Rudisill then became an officer in 2007.
Rudisill earned his undergraduate degree in between his years in service. Under the Montgomery GI Bill, he was entitled to 36 months of benefits. However, Rudisill’s service would also qualify him for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, adding another 36 months to his benefits.
Rudisill enrolled in Yale Divinity School after the military. He thought he would have 22 months of benefits left to cover his degree, but Veterans Affairs said he only had 10.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals upheld the agency’s ruling, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reversed. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then affirmed.
In a dissenting opinion, justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would affirm the Federal Circuit's ruling, adding that Rudisill should not receive both benefits at the same time and would need to "elect" which benefits to receive.
"The court holds that, although Rudisill must make some election to switch from his Montgomery to Post-9/11 benefits, the statute’s corresponding limits do not apply because it would reduce the amount of available benefits," Thomas wrote. "In my view, the court ignores the statutory mechanism that Congress created in favor of an interpretation that reaches a desired outcome. I respectfully dissent."
In a concurring opinion, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett said although they agree with the majority court's finding, they have constitutional concerns over the pro-veteran canon and interpreting ambiguous statutes involving federal benefits in favor of the veteran.
Kavanaugh wrote that interpretating benefit statues to favor a particular group creates significant tension with the operations of Congress and federal spending laws. He added that national security, poverty assistance, law enforcement, environmental protection, border security, cancer research, airplane safety, disaster relief, highway construction, and more all compete for federal funding that primarily comes from taxes paid by Americans.
"To be clear, Congress’s commitment to assisting veterans through the many federal veterans-benefits programs is entirely appropriate given the sacrifices made by those who have served in the armed forces," Kavanaugh wrote.
"The statutes that provide significant veterans benefits — including healthcare, education, disability, and retirement benefits — properly assist those who have defended America. And when statutes afford broad benefits for veterans or others, as is often the case, courts should apply the statutes as written," he added.
Follow @Megwiththenews
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Courts and churches April 15, 2024
