Johnson v. United States Congress (25-735)
- Term
- OT 2026
- Certiorari granted
- 2026-04-06
- Court below
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Argued
- 2026-10-05
The case in brief
Facts
Floyd Johnson is an Army veteran who, while in a Florida prison for felony convictions, got an 80 percent disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A separate federal law limits veterans imprisoned for a felony for more than 60 days to benefits at the 10 percent level, no matter how disabled they are. Representing himself, Johnson sued the United States Congress in a federal trial court (a district court) in Florida. He argued that this law violates the Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. The Eleventh Circuit appeals court ordered the case dismissed, ruling that the Veterans' Judicial Review Act sends such challenges only to two specialized courts, not to district courts. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard argument on October 5, 2026.
Question
Did the Veterans' Judicial Review Act take away the power of district courts, recognized by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Robison (1974), to hear claims that laws passed by Congress about veterans' benefits are unconstitutional?
Question Presented
Did the Veterans' Judicial Review Act strip district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this Court in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans' benefits?
Model prediction
Johnson 5-4 (53% confidence, raw). Calibrated to the historical base rate: Johnson 62%.
Case preview
Does the Veterans' Judicial Review Act bar federal district courts from hearing constitutional challenges to federal statutes affecting veterans' benefits, which Johnson v. Robison (1974) held they could hear under the predecessor law, and instead channel those challenges into the VA's specialized review system?
Johnson
- The petitioner argues that Section 511(a) bars district-court review only of questions the VA must resolve in interpreting and applying benefits statutes. On this reading, a decision "under" a statute does not include a challenge to that statute's validity.
- The petitioner argues that Robison construed identical language in Section 511(a)'s predecessor. In the petitioner's view, the VJRA did not abrogate Robison but kept the very language the Court relied on.
- The petitioner argues that deciding constitutional challenges to statutes is not "necessary" to the Secretary's benefits decisions. The petitioner points out that the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), which makes those final decisions, does not decide such challenges, and VA regulations prohibit it from doing so.
- The petitioner argues that standalone constitutional challenges do not raise the concerns that justify specialized review. The petitioner adds that the years-long VJRA process would serve only to delay such claims.
- The petitioner argues that an Elgin-style implied-preclusion inquiry is unnecessary because the statute's express text sets the limits of preclusion. The petitioner adds that any ambiguity should be resolved in veterans' favor under the pro-veteran canon.
United States Congress
- The respondent argues that Section 511(a) expressly covers a constitutional challenge to a statute that requires a benefits reduction, because that question bears on the VA's benefits determination. The respondent reads the phrase "any such question" to bar district courts from reviewing the same questions the agency must resolve.
- The respondent argues that Robison does not control. Former Section 211(a) turned on whether questions arose under VA laws, while current Section 511(a) turns on whether a question is necessary to a decision under a benefits law.
- The respondent argues that, unlike in Robison, precluding district-court jurisdiction today does not deny judicial review. Instead, it routes these claims to the Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit, which is expressly authorized to decide challenges to statutes' validity.
- The respondent argues that the petitioner is wrong that the Board cannot consider constitutional challenges to statutes. The respondent adds that such issues can in any event be decided by the Secretary and at higher levels, and that the pro-veteran canon does not apply because the VJRA is unambiguous.
- The respondent argues that, to the extent the Thunder Basin factors matter, they favor channeling. In its view, the VJRA provides meaningful judicial review, and a challenge to the very statute that reduced the petitioner's benefits is not collateral to the scheme.
The United States: Appearing as respondent, the federal government argues that the VJRA expressly channels constitutional challenges to veterans'-benefits statutes into the VA review scheme and the Veterans Court and Federal Circuit, displacing district-court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
How the case got here
Floyd Johnson, an Army veteran incarcerated for felony convictions in Florida, received an 80 percent disability rating for PTSD from the VA after an administrative appeal, but 38 U.S.C. § 5313 limited his benefits to the 10 percent level. He filed a pro se complaint against the United States Congress in the Middle District of Florida alleging that § 5313 violates the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component; the district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Congress had not waived sovereign immunity and that the Veterans' Judicial Review Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over such constitutional challenges in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit. The petitioner contends that this ruling conflicts with decisions of other circuits holding that district courts may hear constitutional challenges to veterans' benefits statutes.
- Date not stated — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Initial determination on service-connected disability benefits claim; 70 percent disability rating assigned
- Date not stated — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Administrative appeal; disability rating increased to 80 percent (benefits limited to 10 percent level under 38 U.S.C. § 5313). Johnson (rating increased)
- Date not stated — U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida: Pro se complaint filed against the United States Congress challenging 38 U.S.C. § 5313 under the Bill of Attainder Clause and Fifth Amendment equal protection
- Date not stated — U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida: Magistrate judge screened complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) and recommended dismissal on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Recommendation against Johnson
- Date not stated — U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida: District court adopted recommendation and dismissed complaint (2022 WL 18716714). Dismissed; against Johnson
- Date not stated — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Motion for appointment of counsel granted on appeal. Johnson
- 2025-07-14 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Johnson moved to amend complaint to name proper defendants
- 2025-08-19 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Judgment vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (151 F.4th 1287). Against Johnson (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
- 2025-12-17 — Supreme Court of the United States: Petition for certiorari filed
- 2026-04-06 — Supreme Court of the United States: Certiorari granted
- 2026-08-04 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Monday, October 5, 2026.
- 2026-08-04 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Monday, October 5, 2026.
- 2026-10-05 — Supreme Court of the United States: Argued
In the news
Interactive oral-argument transcript · Supreme Court docket · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.