Justices to Consider Path for Veteran’s Challenge of VA Benefits

The US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether federal district courts have the authority to review claims challenging the constitutionality of statutes affecting veterans’ benefits.

The case granted Monday centers around the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act, a law passed by Congress in 1988 that altered how veterans could appeal denied benefits claims, and whether it stripped trial courts of jurisdiction in such challenges.

Army veteran Floyd D. Johnson is behind the petition. Johnson was involved in a combat training exercise in Germany while serving “that turned deadly” and he was later honorably discharged, according to the brief he submitted to the justices.

The brief notes that Johnson in 2013 was convicted of several state felonies in Florida and sentenced to 40 years in prison. While imprisoned, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He applied for disability benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs, which ultimately found that his disability merited an 80% rating.

But a different law caps benefits for veterans incarcerated with a felony to a rating that is no greater than 10%. Johnson sued in Florida federal court claiming such a provision violated the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The question for the justices is whether federal courts’ review of such a claim flouts the judicial review scheme established by Congress in the 1980s. That law created an appeals court to review veterans’ appeals and offered a pathway for further review through the Federal Circuit.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit turned away Johnson’s suit, citing that judicial review scheme. But Johnson argued that the decision ignored Supreme Court precedent that distinguished the challenge as one against an act of Congress, rather than one by an administrator.

The Justice Department also urged the court to grant review, acknowledging a need for the justices to resolve a split in how federal appeals courts have answered that question.

The case is: Johnson v. U.S. Congress, U.S., 25-735, granted, 4/6/26.