Supreme Court Rules Veterans Court Can Overturn Benefits Denials Only for Clear Errors

In a 7–2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that the Veterans Court (also known as the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) is not required to re‑weigh every piece of evidence in cases involving disability benefit denials. Under the ruling, it may overturn a denial only if the decision contains a “clear mistake.”

The case arose from claims brought by two veterans, Norman Thornton and Joshua Bufkin, who argued that the Veterans Court had applied too strict a standard in reviewing their appeals. Thornton, a Gulf War veteran, contended that his post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rating was too low, while in Bufkin’s case, medical opinions could not reach consensus, and as a result, he was denied benefits altogether.

The Legal Question at the Heart

At issue was whether the Veterans Court should conduct a “de novo” review—meaning it would examine all the evidence anew and make its own judgment—or whether the court should defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) unless there is a clear and unmistakable error. The government, along with veteran service organizations, defended the deferential approach, arguing that Congress intended the Veterans Court to correct only obvious mistakes, not to act as a second fact‑finder.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority and joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasized that the ruling preserves the balance intended by Congress. They reasoned that allowing full reexamination of all evidence would upend the carefully calibrated relationship between the VA and the Veterans Court, where deference is part of the statutory architecture.

Veterans’ advocates had challenged that deference, arguing that the VA frequently receives favorable treatment and that veterans deserve thorough scrutiny of their claims—especially when dealing with invisible injuries like mental health conditions.

In Bufkin’s situation, the court sided with the VA’s view that one doctor’s opinion was stronger than conflicting statements. Bufkin described traumatic circumstances during his service: his wife allegedly threatened suicide if he did not leave the military, and military leadership offered him an ultimatum of quitting or divorcing. Nevertheless, the VA found insufficient evidence to grant him PTSD benefits.

In Thornton’s case, the VA declined to elevate his disability rating, citing sufficient evidence against a higher award. The Court held that the evidence did not clearly demand a revision, and thus the denial would stand.

What the Court’s Decision Means

By rejecting the notion that the Veterans Court must re-weigh every piece of evidence, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a more restrained role for judicial review in veterans’ benefits cases. The Veterans Court will continue to examine whether the VA’s decision is reasonable and justified—but only reverse it when a “clear mistake” is found.

This ruling aligns with earlier legislative signals. When Congress established the Veterans Court in 1988, and later in amendments in 2002, it set statutory standards for deference and asked that the court not become a forum of complete trial-like review.

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion argued that this structure protects both the VA’s administrative function and veterans’ rights, by limiting excessive litigation while preserving meaningful oversight.

Reactions from Veterans and Legal Experts

Not surprisingly, reactions were mixed. Some veteran advocates voiced disappointment, saying the decision weakens the ability of injured veterans to challenge denials effectively. They warn that many VA decisions involve complex medical issues and conflicting expert opinions—and that limiting review may favor the VA over individuals who suffer from invisible conditions.

Others welcomed the clarity. They said the ruling avoids a prosecutorial trap in which courts get bogged down re-litigating every detail, potentially delaying veterans’ benefits for years. Under the new standard, only decisions plainly mistaken should be overturned.

Legal scholars believe this case could become a precedent in other administrative law contexts, reinforcing deference toward agency decisions unless they are plainly wrong.

Broader Context: Judicial Oversight vs. Administrative Authority

In administrative law, courts often balance between respecting expertise of agencies and guarding against abuse of power. The Supreme Court’s ruling falls on the side of restraint—affirming that when Congress has given agencies a particular domain (in this case, the VA), courts should not micromanage every decision unless there is a conspicuous flaw.

Veterans’ disability adjudication is especially challenging because many claims involve mental health, chronic conditions, or subjective medical judgments. The difference between “well grounded” and “not well grounded” evidence often lies in expert interpretation rather than clear factual error—thus making “clear mistake” a high bar to reach.

What Lies Ahead

The case now returns to the Veterans Court. Thornton, Bufkin, and their legal teams will have a chance to show that the VA’s decisions were not merely debatable but clearly wrong. If they succeed, they may obtain revised ratings or benefits.

If not, the VA’s rulings will remain in place, and many veterans in similar circumstances might find their appeals more difficult to win. Lawyers expect that the ruling will influence how VA claims and appeals are handled—perhaps encouraging more rigorous fact categorization at the original stages, knowing the court’s review will be limited.

For veterans navigating the benefits system, the message is clear: while the door to judicial relief remains open, it is narrower than before. Courts may not re-litigate every medical opinion—but they will still ensure that VA decisions survive scrutiny when they are reasonable, not when they merely pass a minimum standard.

In the end, the decision underscores a delicate tension: protecting administrative expertise and consistency, while ensuring mercy and justice for those who have served. How the Veterans Court applies “clear mistake” in future cases may well define that balance for years to come.