Supreme Court Hears Case of Jailed Army Veteran Challenging VA Claims-Appeals Process

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case of a jailed veteran who saw his disability benefits reduced because of his penal status.

Floyd Johnson served in the U.S. Army as an infantryman from 1983 to 1985. In 2013, he was sentenced to 40 years in prison on felony charges.

The case at hand, Johnson v. United States Congress, was heard Monday and stems from Johnson’s challenge to a federal law that reduces disability benefits for incarcerated veterans.

Some 107,400 veterans are incarcerated in state or federal prisons, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), although not all receive VA disability benefits. The ruling could have a huge impact on those who do.

A VA spokesperson told Military.com it does not comment on pending legal cases.

Floyd Johnson’s Case

While he was in jail, medics diagnosed Johnson with service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gave him an 80% disability rating, meaning the department deemed his condition severely impacted him and resulted in an 80% reduction in his overall health and earning capacity.

Veterans who are incarcerated for more than 60 days are restricted by law from receiving full benefits, so his rating was reduced to 10%.

Johnson first filed a case in the Middle District of Florida, arguing that the law capping his benefits violated his constitutional rights.

But the court dismissed the case in 2022, leading Johnson to appeal to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

How the Supreme Court Might Rule, and What Johnson’s Attorneys are Saying

Johnson’s legal attempts have reached the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on Monday.

Johnson’s legal team argues that the VA is an administrative agency that lacks the constitutional expertise and authority to strike down a federal law. They contend that stripping veterans of their right to sue in traditional courts creates a dangerous legal vacuum.

“This case illustrates the impact of a single veterans’ benefits statute. Section 5313, the statute Mr. Johnson challenges, limits the benefits of thousands of veterans. Moreover, 30% of all veterans experience service-connected disabilities, and veterans with PTSD are disproportionately at risk of incarceration,” Johnson’s attorneys said in their petition.

Conversely, the government maintains that Congress intentionally designed a specialized, single-track appeals system to ensure all veterans’ benefits claims are handled uniformly.

Allowing veterans to file separate lawsuits in district courts across the country, the government warns, would overwhelm the judiciary and lead to conflicting legal rules.

“Petitioner’s contrary view would conflict with the statutory text and deprive veterans of their ability to bring such claims to the agency,” said Kevin Barber, assistant to the solicitor general. “It would even compel the VA to enforce a hypothetical benefit statute that was blatantly unconstitutional.”

The court is expected to rule on the case in early 2027.