Supreme Court to Examine Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Veterans' Benefits Disputes

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision on federal court jurisdiction over veterans' benefits disputes could directly affect the significant population of veterans residing in the District of Columbia and how they pursue constitutional challenges to benefit limitations.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday will consider the extent to which federal district courts can review disputes over veterans' benefits, specifically constitutional challenges to laws limiting disability payments for certain incarcerated veterans. The case, *Johnson v. United States Congress*, revisits a 1974 Supreme Court ruling concerning judicial review in this area. The case centers on Floyd Johnson, who served in the U.S. Army from 1983 to 1985. In 2013, after a Florida felony conviction, Johnson received a 40-year prison sentence. While incarcerated, he received a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder attributed to his military service. He applied for and initially received disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at a 70 percent rate, later increased to 80 percent after an administrative appeal. The VA subsequently reduced Johnson's disability rating to 10 percent. The agency cited a federal law that caps benefits for veterans incarcerated for more than 60 days. Johnson, representing himself, filed a federal lawsuit against Congress in Florida. He argued that the law capping disability benefits for incarcerated veterans violated the Constitution's bill of attainder clause and the Fifth Amendment. In 2022, a magistrate judge recommended dismissing the challenge, stating Johnson "failed to provide any persuasive allegation, argument, or citation." The district court dismissed the case. Johnson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. With newly appointed legal counsel, Johnson continued his challenge to the benefits cap. He acknowledged that Congress was not the appropriate defendant and sought to substitute the VA and its secretary as defendants. In August 2025, the 11th Circuit ruled that sovereign immunity barred Johnson's lawsuit against Congress. The court denied his request to substitute new defendants, stating that such a change would be "futile" because, under the Veterans' Judicial Review Act (VJRA), the case could not proceed in district court. The appeals court concluded that Congress's intent to exclude district-court jurisdiction was "fairly discernible" from the VJRA's text. The VJRA establishes a specific appeals process for benefits decisions. Veterans can seek review from a VA board. If unsuccessful, they can appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Congress enacted the VJRA in 1988. This followed the Supreme Court's 1974 decision in *Johnson v. Robison*, which addressed veterans' access to judicial review. *Robison* concerned an earlier policy that stated VA decisions on benefits were "final and conclusive" and beyond review by any U.S. court. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, determined this language did not apply to constitutional challenges to veterans' benefits laws. Johnson argued to the 11th Circuit that the VJRA's language, which states that VA secretary decisions "shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed" unless falling within the Veterans Court and Federal Circuit's jurisdiction, resembled the earlier policy. He contended that *Robison* should apply, allowing his constitutional claims to proceed in federal district court. The 11th Circuit rejected this argument. It stated that "*Robison* involved a materially different statutory scheme" and that the VJRA's text gives the Federal Circuit "exclusive jurisdiction" over constitutional questions related to VA benefits decisions. The court acknowledged, however, that other circuit courts had reached different conclusions, ruling that "district courts retain jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges." In December, Johnson asked the Supreme Court to review the case, citing the disagreement among federal appeals courts regarding the application of *Robison* after the VJRA's enactment. The Supreme Court granted review in April. In his brief, Johnson emphasizes the VJRA's use of "materially similar" language to the law in *Robison* concerning district court review. He argues that by retaining this language, Congress also preserved *Robison*'s interpretation, meaning district courts retain jurisdiction over constitutional challenges. Johnson also asserts that federal district courts must be the proper venue because, in his view, the Board of Veterans' Appeals lacks authority to review constitutional claims, being bound by applicable statutes. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that *Robison* does not directly apply to the current dispute. Sauer contends that the VJRA altered the legal context. "When *Robison* was decided, filing suit in district court was the *only* means by which veterans could obtain judicial review of [] constitutional claims," Sauer wrote. "Because the VJRA now authorizes the Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit to resolve constitutional challenges to VA-benefits statutes, the potential gap that concerned the *Robison* Court no longer exists." Sauer also disputes Johnson's claim about the Board of Veterans' Appeals' authority, stating that "the premise that the Board is disabled from considering such challenges is incorrect." He adds that such issues can be decided by the VA Secretary and at higher levels of the VJRA review scheme. *Johnson v. United States Congress* is scheduled as the second argument on Monday. A ruling from the Supreme Court is anticipated by early July.