The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Veterans Court does not have to re-examine all evidence when reviewing disability benefits denials. It can only overturn a decision if there is a clear mistake.
This standard was questioned by two veterans, Norman Thornton and Joshua Bufkin. Thornton, who served in the Gulf War, said that his PTSD disability rating should be higher. Doctors couldn’t agree on whether Bufkin was eligible for PTSD benefits, so he wasn’t given them.
Advertisement
Their lawyers said the case could have an effect on a lot of veterans. Along with Neil Gorsuch, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the decision makes sure that the Veterans Court will keep giving in to the VA, even though Congress is trying to protect veterans.
Veterans’ groups supported the challenge, asserting that they have consistently received leniency when claiming disabilities. This was made clearer by Congress when it created the Veterans Court in 1988 and told it to follow this standard again in 2002.
Veterans, on the other hand, said the court was too kind to the VA. The federal government said that the Veterans Court’s job is to look over decisions for clear mistakes, not to look at the evidence again.
The court agreed with the VA that one doctor’s opinion was stronger in Bufkin’s case.
After his wife said she would kill herself if he didn’t leave the military, and the military allegedly told him to quit or get a divorce, Bufkin said he was traumatized.
The VA decided that Thornton did not deserve a higher disability rating in his case. The government said that his case wasn’t even close because there was enough evidence against him.
The SCOTUS made headlines a few days ago.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an emergency appeal from Virginia officials seeking to reinstate a congressional map that would have significantly benefited Democrats in this year’s midterm elections, marking the latest chapter in the escalating national redistricting war.
The high court’s one-sentence order offered no explanation for the decision and noted no dissents, effectively ending Democratic hopes of using the proposed map to potentially gain as many as four additional House seats.
The decision was widely anticipated because the case turned largely on state law rather than federal constitutional issues, an area in which the U.S. Supreme Court typically gives substantial deference to state courts.
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) had already signaled this week that the state was prepared to move forward using the existing congressional map regardless of how the justices ruled.
Democratic officials rushed to the Supreme Court after Virginia’s highest court issued a 4-3 ruling striking down the proposed congressional map.
The Virginia Supreme Court concluded lawmakers violated the state constitution in how they handled the referendum process authorizing the unusual mid-decade redistricting effort.
Advertisement
Specifically, the state court found that lawmakers failed to properly sequence the approval of the constitutional amendment because the first legislative vote occurred after early voting had already begun, even though it occurred before Election Day.
Virginia Democrats argued in their emergency filing that the state court’s ruling was “deeply mistaken” and had “profound practical importance to the nation.”
Their legal strategy sought to convert the dispute into a federal elections issue by arguing that the term “election” in federal law refers only to Election Day, not the early voting period.
Democrats also leaned on a constitutional argument more commonly associated with Republicans, asserting that under the Elections Clause, state legislatures — not courts — hold primary authority over federal election rules.
That argument failed to persuade the justices.
The ruling represents another setback for Democrats as the Supreme Court increasingly finds itself at the center of redistricting battles shaping the midterm landscape.
Advertisement
In recent weeks, the court has allowed Republican-led states, including Louisiana and Alabama, to move forward with new congressional maps expected to improve GOP electoral prospects.
Those decisions followed a major Supreme Court ruling in late April that narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, giving Republican lawmakers broader legal cover to redraw maps using political considerations.
That ruling accelerated a coast-to-coast redistricting fight as both parties attempted to maximize their advantage ahead of November.
President Donald Trump has openly encouraged Republican-led states to redraw maps between census cycles in an effort to protect the GOP’s razor-thin House majority.
Several Southern states have responded quickly, with lawmakers moving to recraft district boundaries in ways expected to favor Republicans.
Virginia’s case was different because it did not focus on racial gerrymandering or Voting Rights Act protections.
This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
