Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

George v. McDonough: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE: ''{{PAGENAME}}''}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE: ''{{PAGENAME}}''}}
{{TASP banner menu}}
{{TASP banner menu}}
{{SCOTUS Infobox 3
{{SCOTUS Infobox 4
|Name = ''George v. McDonough''  
|Name = ''George v. McDonough''  
|Docket = 21-234
|Docket = 21-234
|Term = 2021
|Term = 2021
|Court = [[United States Supreme Court]]  
|Court = [[United States Supreme Court]]  
|Important dates = {{Greener| start=4/19/22 10:00am CST| before=Argument:| after=Argued:}} April 19, 2022
|Important dates = {{Greener| start=4/19/22 10:00am CST| before=Argument:| after=Argued:}} April 19, 2022<br>Decided:June 15, 2022
|Outcome = Pending
|Outcome = [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Federal Circuit]] {{affirmed}}
|Vote =   
|Vote =  6-3
|Majority =
|Majority = [[John Roberts (Supreme Court)|Chief Justice John Roberts]] • [[Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court)|Clarence Thomas]] • [[Brett Kavanaugh]] • [[Amy Coney Barrett]] • [[Samuel Alito]] • [[Elena Kagan]]
|Concurring =  
|Concurring =  
|Dissenting=
|Dissenting= [[Stephen Breyer]] • [[Sonia Sotomayor]] • [[Neil Gorsuch]]  
|Court membership = [[John Roberts (Supreme Court)|Chief Justice John Roberts]] • [[Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court)|Clarence Thomas]] • [[Stephen Breyer]] • [[Samuel Alito]] • [[Sonia Sotomayor]] • [[Elena Kagan]] • [[Neil Gorsuch]] • [[Brett Kavanaugh]] • [[Amy Coney Barrett]]
|Court membership = 
}}
}}
'''''George v. McDonough''''' is a case involving when a veteran has the legal right to appeal after the [[U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs]] (VA) denies a disability benefits claim. Veterans have the right to challenge final VA decisions if the agency makes a "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE). This case is about whether CUE occurred when the VA relied on later-overturned regulations to deny a disability claim.<ref name=pet>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-234/187444/20210813131036073_George%20Cert%20Petition.pdf U.S. Supreme Court, "''George v. McDonough'', Petition for a writ of certiorari," August 13, 2021]</ref>
'''''George v. McDonough''''' was a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] case decided on June 15, 2022, in which the court held 6-3 that a "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE) does not include a subsequent change to the law or an agency's change to a statutory interpretation. The court found that the [[U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs]] (VA) did not commit a CUE when it relied on later-overturned regulations to deny a disability claim. The court held that the VA's regulatory changes can only retroactively affect open—rather than final—agency decisions.  <ref name=pet>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-234/187444/20210813131036073_George%20Cert%20Petition.pdf U.S. Supreme Court, "''George v. McDonough'', Petition for a writ of certiorari," August 13, 2021]</ref><ref name=opinion>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf ''United States Supreme Court'', "George v. McDonough," June 15, 2022]</ref>


The case {{Greener| start=4/19/22 10:00am CST| before=is scheduled for argument| after=was argued}} before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] on April 19, 2022, during the court's [[Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022|October 2021-2022 term]].  
The case {{Greener| start=4/19/22 10:00am CST| before=is scheduled for argument| after=was argued}} before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] on April 19, 2022, during the court's [[Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022|October 2021-2022 term]].  
Line 22: Line 22:
     | '''The issue:''' The case {{Greener| start=6/30/2022| before=concerns| after=concerned}} whether veterans may challenge VA decisions based on regulations that are found to be in violation of the plain text of governing statutes.
     | '''The issue:''' The case {{Greener| start=6/30/2022| before=concerns| after=concerned}} whether veterans may challenge VA decisions based on regulations that are found to be in violation of the plain text of governing statutes.
     | '''[[#Question presented|The question presented]]:''' "When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision?"<ref name=pet/>
     | '''[[#Question presented|The question presented]]:''' "When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision?"<ref name=pet/>
     | '''[[#Outcome|The outcome]]:''' The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.
     | '''[[#Outcome|The outcome]]:''' The United States Supreme Court {{affirmed}} the decision of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Federal Circuit]] and held that a CUE does not include a subsequent change to the law or an agency's change to a statutory interpretation. Thus, the VA's regulatory changes can only retroactively affect open—rather than final—agency decisions.
}}
}}


Line 29: Line 29:
<br>
<br>


'''Why it matters:''' If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that veterans may challenge VA decisions based on regulations that are later found to be invalid, veterans whose disability claims were denied on those grounds may seek to have the agency revise its decisions.
'''Why it matters:''' The court's decision shed light on how regulatory changes may or may not affect final agency actions. In this case, the court clarified that a regulatory change by the VA does not constitute a "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE) under which a veteran can seek collateral relief for the denial of a disability claim.


==Timeline==
==Timeline==
The following timeline details key events in this case:
The following timeline details key events in this case:


*'''June 15, 2022:''' The U.S. Supreme Court  {{affirmed}} the decision of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]|Federal Circuit]].
*'''April 19, 2022:''' The U.S. Supreme Court {{Greener| start=4/19/22 10:00am CST| before=will hear| after=heard}} oral argument.
*'''April 19, 2022:''' The U.S. Supreme Court {{Greener| start=4/19/22 10:00am CST| before=will hear| after=heard}} oral argument.
*'''January 14, 2022''': The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
*'''January 14, 2022''': The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Line 69: Line 70:


==Outcome==
==Outcome==
The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court held 6-3 that the VA's regulatory change did not constitute a CUE—a category that does not include subsequent changes to laws or statutory interpretations. As such, regulatory changes by the VA can only retroactively affect open agency decisions, not final decisions.<ref name=opinion/>
 
Justice [[Amy Coney Barrett]] delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] and Justices [[Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court)|Clarence Thomas]], [[Brett Kavanaugh]], [[Samuel Alito]], and  [[Elena Kagan]]. Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] filed a dissenting opinion. Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] and Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] (with respect to all but Part II-C).
 
==Opinions==
===Opinion of the court===
Justice [[Amy Coney Barrett]] delivered the opinion of the court, which held that CUEs do not include subsequent changes to laws or statutory interpretations. Regulatory changes by the VA can therefore only retroactively affect open—rather than final—agency decisions:<ref name=opinion/>
 
{{Quote| [O]n collateral review of a final decision, the more limited category of '[c]lear and unmistakable error does not include the otherwise correct application of a statute or regulation where, subsequent to the Board decision challenged, there has been a change in the interpretation of the statute or regulation.' 38 CFR §20.1403(e).1 The applicability of this principle does not depend on the reason why the agency changed course: A change based on the conclusion that a prior interpretation was wrong is still a changed interpretation.}}
 
===Dissenting opinions===
Justice [[Neil Gorsuch]] filed a dissenting opinion arguing in part that Congress, in 38 U. S. C. § 1110, "required the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any condition a veteran suffered was not aggravated by service." The agency's rescinded regulations departed from the congressional standard, according to Gorsuch, which should have entitled George to a hearing. Gorsuch argued that "the agency’s failure to provide him that simple (and legally compelled) courtesy is inexcusable."<ref name=opinion/>
 
Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] filed a dissenting opinion, arguing in part that the CUE doctrine developed by Congress "was unsettled as to whether judicial invalidation of a regulation that squarely contravened an unambiguous statute constituted a 'change in interpretation of law.'"<ref name=opinion/>
 
===Text of the opinion===
Read the full opinion [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf here].
 
<pdf width="500" height="500">File: George v. McDonough.pdf</pdf>


==October term 2021-2022==
==October term 2021-2022==
Line 97: Line 116:
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[Category:SCOTUS OT 2021]]
[[Category:SCOTUS OT 2021]]
[[Category:Pending SCOTUS cases]]
[[Category:Court cases related to the administrative state]]
[[Category:Court cases related to the administrative state]]
[[Category:SCOTUS majority opinions, Amy Coney Barrett]]

Revision as of 01:40, 16 June 2022

New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
George v. McDonough
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: April 19, 2022
Decided:June 15, 2022
Outcome
Federal Circuit affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch

George v. McDonough was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided on June 15, 2022, in which the court held 6-3 that a "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE) does not include a subsequent change to the law or an agency's change to a statutory interpretation. The court found that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did not commit a CUE when it relied on later-overturned regulations to deny a disability claim. The court held that the VA's regulatory changes can only retroactively affect open—rather than final—agency decisions. [1][2]

The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 19, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied Kevin George's 1970s disability claim based on a regulation that did not require the agency to prove that his military service did not aggravate his condition. Decades later, a court ruled that the regulation was invalid because it violated the unambiguous text of the relevant statute. George sought to have the VA reconsider his claim following the court ruling, arguing that reliance on the faulty regulation constituted "clear and unmistakable error."[1] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned whether veterans may challenge VA decisions based on regulations that are found to be in violation of the plain text of governing statutes.
  • The question presented: "When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision?"[1]
  • The outcome: The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit and held that a CUE does not include a subsequent change to the law or an agency's change to a statutory interpretation. Thus, the VA's regulatory changes can only retroactively affect open—rather than final—agency decisions.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: The court's decision shed light on how regulatory changes may or may not affect final agency actions. In this case, the court clarified that a regulatory change by the VA does not constitute a "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE) under which a veteran can seek collateral relief for the denial of a disability claim.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    The Department of Veterans Affairs denies Kevin George's disability claim

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied Kevin George's 1970s disability claim based on a regulation that did not require the agency to prove that his military service did not aggravate his condition. Decades later, a court ruled that the regulation was invalid because it violated the unambiguous text of the relevant statute. George sought to have the VA reconsider his claim following the court ruling, arguing that reliance on the faulty regulation constituted "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE).[1]

    Federal Circuit rules against George

    The Federal Circuit held that George could not show that the VA committed CUE in his case because the agency "had applied the law in existence at the time."[1] George appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that "when a federal court interprets an unambiguous statute, it is declaring what the law has always meant, not announcing a change in meaning."[1]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Question presented:
    “ When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision?

    [4]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    The court held 6-3 that the VA's regulatory change did not constitute a CUE—a category that does not include subsequent changes to laws or statutory interpretations. As such, regulatory changes by the VA can only retroactively affect open agency decisions, not final decisions.[2]

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (with respect to all but Part II-C).

    Opinions

    Opinion of the court

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court, which held that CUEs do not include subsequent changes to laws or statutory interpretations. Regulatory changes by the VA can therefore only retroactively affect open—rather than final—agency decisions:[2]

    “ [O]n collateral review of a final decision, the more limited category of '[c]lear and unmistakable error does not include the otherwise correct application of a statute or regulation where, subsequent to the Board decision challenged, there has been a change in the interpretation of the statute or regulation.' 38 CFR §20.1403(e).1 The applicability of this principle does not depend on the reason why the agency changed course: A change based on the conclusion that a prior interpretation was wrong is still a changed interpretation.[4] ”

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion arguing in part that Congress, in 38 U. S. C. § 1110, "required the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any condition a veteran suffered was not aggravated by service." The agency's rescinded regulations departed from the congressional standard, according to Gorsuch, which should have entitled George to a hearing. Gorsuch argued that "the agency’s failure to provide him that simple (and legally compelled) courtesy is inexcusable."[2]

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, arguing in part that the CUE doctrine developed by Congress "was unsettled as to whether judicial invalidation of a regulation that squarely contravened an unambiguous statute constituted a 'change in interpretation of law.'"[2]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[8] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[9]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "George v. McDonough, Petition for a writ of certiorari," August 13, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 United States Supreme Court, "George v. McDonough," June 15, 2022
    3. ↑ CASETEXT, "George v. McDonough," March 16, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 19, 2022
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 19, 2022
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    8. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    9. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=George_v._McDonough&oldid=8831114"