The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral argument in Johnson v. United States Congress, a case asking whether federal district courts have authority to hear constitutional challenges to veterans' benefits laws. The dispute centers on Section 511(a) of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act, which makes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' benefits decisions final and generally not reviewable by any court. Veteran Floyd Johnson argues that his challenge to a law capping disability benefits for incarcerated veterans should proceed in federal district court.
Johnson's counsel, Jeffrey Chen, told the justices that constitutional challenges to statutes are different from challenges to agency action, and that the Board of Veterans Appeals has long disclaimed authority to decide constitutional questions. Several justices appeared puzzled by that line-drawing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called it "a weird way to slice it," and Justice Clarence Thomas agreed. Justices Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito pressed Chen on the statutory text, questioning why the Constitution should not be considered "a law that affects the provision of benefits."
The government, represented by Assistant to the Solicitor General Kevin Barber, argued that there is no basis for allowing district courts to hear some types of constitutional challenges but not others. Barber also acknowledged that the Board of Veterans Appeals has been inconsistent in the past about its authority to address such questions. After more than an hour of argument, it was clear that several justices saw flaws on each side, leaving the outcome uncertain.