Supreme Court Rules Against Veterans in Landmark Disability Benefits Case

In a closely watched case that could reshape how veterans’ disability claims are reviewed, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two former service members who argued that their claims were unfairly denied despite what they described as balanced evidence.

In a 7–2 decision, issued on March 5, the Court determined that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not required to independently review the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) application of the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule in most cases. This rule traditionally requires the VA to approve a veteran’s claim when the supporting and opposing evidence are nearly equal.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that the Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals—which had both previously upheld the VA’s decisions—were correct in finding that the courts need only examine whether the VA made a clear legal or factual error.

“We hold that the Veterans Court must review the VA’s application of the rule the same way it would any other determination—by reviewing legal issues from the beginning and factual issues for clear error,” Thomas wrote in the Court’s opinion.

The decision effectively narrows how much judicial oversight can be applied to VA benefit denials, leaving many veterans’ advocates concerned that the ruling could make it harder for veterans to challenge decisions when their cases hinge on close or conflicting evidence.

---

Two Veterans at the Center of the Case

The case, Bufkin v. Collins, centered on two veterans: Joshua Bufkin, a former Air Force airman, and Norman Thornton, a U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War.

Bufkin served from 2005 to 2006 and filed a disability claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) about seven years after his discharge. He argued that the stress of military service, combined with personal and family crises, triggered his condition. According to court documents, Bufkin left the service under a hardship discharge after his wife threatened suicide if he remained in uniform.

When Bufkin later sought VA healthcare and disability benefits, agency doctors disagreed on whether his PTSD diagnosis was linked to his service. Because of these conflicting medical opinions, his claim was ultimately denied.

Thornton, who served in the Army from 1988 to 1991 and deployed during the Gulf War, initially received a 10 percent disability rating for PTSD. The VA later raised that rating to 50 percent, but Thornton appealed, contending that his symptoms warranted a higher evaluation. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals concluded that the evidence did not justify a further increase.

Both men appealed to the Veterans Court, which found that the VA adjudicators and the Board had not committed any errors. The court did not conduct a separate “benefit-of-the-doubt” review, a decision that the Federal Circuit also upheld.

---

The Supreme Court’s Majority Opinion

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that the question of whether evidence in a case is evenly balanced is “predominantly factual.” Because of that, he said, the Veterans Court is limited to determining whether the VA made a “clear error” in judgment—not to reweighing evidence or substituting its own evaluation.

“After closely examining how the VA applies the approximate-balance inquiry, we conclude it is largely a factual question and thus subject to clear-error review,” Thomas explained.

The ruling affirms that appellate courts can only overturn VA benefit decisions if a clear mistake is shown, rather than simply because the evidence might be interpreted differently.

---

Dissenting Opinions Raise Concerns

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority, arguing that the decision undermines congressional intent to give veterans the benefit of the doubt in close cases.

Justice Jackson’s dissent emphasized that Congress specifically included the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule in veterans’ law to ensure fair treatment for service members who often face complex medical and evidentiary challenges.

“Veterans are entitled to have any reasonable doubt on a material issue resolved in their favor,” Jackson wrote. “The Court today concludes that Congress meant nothing when it inserted this safeguard into law.”

She criticized the majority’s view as overly deferential to the VA, arguing that it allows the agency’s determinations to go largely unchecked—precisely the concern Congress sought to address when establishing the rule.

---

Implications for Veterans Nationwide

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that the Veterans Court does not have to reapply the “benefit-of-the-doubt” standard unless there is a clear indication that the VA misapplied it. While the decision maintains the VA’s existing process for evaluating claims, critics say it could leave some veterans without meaningful recourse when their claims rest on borderline or conflicting evidence.

For Bufkin and Thornton, the outcome marks the end of a long legal battle. For the broader veterans’ community, however, the case underscores an ongoing debate over how much weight should be given to veterans’ claims when evidence is uncertain—a debate that may continue in Congress or future courts.