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.
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.
All eyes were on the Supreme Court this week as the justices heard oral arguments in a case that could change elections in America for decades.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared poised to tighten the reins on how federal courts enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, potentially shielding state lawmakers from challenges that conflate race and partisanship in redistricting.
During re-arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority signaled openness to an approach backed by the Trump Justice Department, which could make it tougher for plaintiffs to win claims of racial vote dilution in regions where voting patterns align closely with party lines—a hallmark of modern Southern politics.
The case stems from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court deemed likely in violation of Section 2 for concentrating Black voters, who make up about a third of the state’s population, into just one majority-Black district out of six.
In response, lawmakers in 2024 adopted a remedial plan creating a second such district. But white voters sued, alleging the fix amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge sided with them.
Initially argued in March, the case returned after the justices ordered fresh briefs on Section 2’s constitutionality.
Over the summer, Louisiana flipped its stance, now urging the Court to curb or eliminate race-conscious districting. Black voters who initiated the original challenge defended the remedial map, arguing it corrects the proven dilution of minority voting power.
Conservative justices showed reluctance to invalidate Section 2 entirely, a provision enacted in 1965 and strengthened in 1982 to bar practices denying minorities equal electoral opportunity.
Instead, they honed in on a narrower theory from Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration.
Citing the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause ruling that barred federal courts from policing partisan gerrymandering, Mooppan argued states could defend maps by invoking legitimate partisan aims—even if those overlap with racial demographics.
This would allow mapmakers to prioritize Republican advantages, for instance, without running afoul of Section 2, as long as the intent isn’t purely racial.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who penned the 2023 Allen v. Milligan decision mandating a second majority-Black district in Alabama, probed whether this framework aligns with Allen and the Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles test.
That test requires plaintiffs to show a minority group is sufficiently large and compact, votes cohesively, and faces majority bloc voting that thwarts their candidates.
All 6 of the court’s justices appeared in favor of undercuting another key section of the Voting Rights Act.
