Current:Home > ScamsSupreme Court takes up dispute over educational benefits for veterans-Angel Dreamer Wealth Society D1 Reviews & Insights
Supreme Court takes up dispute over educational benefits for veterans
View Date:2024-12-23 17:11:28
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider a legal fight involving two federal programs that award educational benefits for veterans, including those who served in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Arguments in the case are set to be heard by the justices when they convene for their next term, which begins in October. Lawyers for the veteran at the center of the case, James Rudisill, told the court it could resolve whether 1.7 million veterans can use full GI education benefits earned through service after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The case involves two laws passed by Congress that provide educational benefits to veterans in recognition of their service: the Montgomery GI Bill, enacted in 1984, awards qualifying veterans who served on active duty between 1985 and 2030; and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, enacted in June 2008, under which eligible veterans who served on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001, are entitled to 36 months of educational benefits.
Both programs cap the education assistance at 36 months, but the Post-9/11 GI Bill was designed to provide veterans with "enhanced educational assistance benefits" that are more generous than the Montgomery GI bill, as Congress found that active-duty service was "especially arduous" for military members after the 9/11 terror attacks.
Congress also enacted a provision that prohibits a veteran from obtaining more than 48 months of benefits under the various federal programs. To coordinate the Montgomery and Post-9/11 programs, Congress approved measures under which a veteran who has already used some of the Montgomery benefits can choose to receive benefits under the Post-9/11 program, but in doing so is subject to a "limitation on entitlement" — the number of months available for Post-9/11 benefits is limited to the number of months of unused Montgomery benefits.
The veteran who brought the case, Rudisill, enlisted in the Army in 2000 and received an honorable discharge in June 2002, after which he used a portion of the 36 months of benefits he was eligible for through the Montgomery GI bill to pursue an undergraduate degree.
Rudisill enlisted a second time with the Army National Guard and deployed to Iraq from 2004 to 2005. He received another honorable discharge and resumed his undergraduate studies, using a combined 25 months and 14 days of benefits from the Montgomery GI bill.
Rudisill was then commissioned as an officer in the Army, from November 2007 to August 2011. Following a third honorable discharge, he worked as an agent in the FBI's domestic-terrorism unit.
Interested in a fourth tour, as an Army chaplain, Rudisill was admitted to the Yale Divinity School and sought to use assistance from the Post-9/11 GI Bill to pay for his graduate education. According to court filings, Rudisill believed that though he earned 36 months of Post-9/11 benefits through his service, he would be able to use 22 months and 16 days, since he had used 25 months and 14 days of the Montgomery benefit. His calculation was based on a statute setting a cap of 48 months of benefits stemming from multiple periods of service.
But the Department of Veterans Affairs found that although Rudisill was eligible for the Post-9/11 benefits, his Post-9/11 educational assistance was limited to the number of unused months remaining from his Montgomery allotment — 10 months and 16 days. He challenged the decision to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which affirmed the VA's finding.
Rudisill then turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which ruled in his favor and found he was not subject to the limitation, as it applied only to veterans who qualified for the Montgomery and Post-9/11 programs based on a "single period of service." A divided three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then affirmed, agreeing that the Post-9/11 program's "limitation on entitlement" did not apply to veterans like Rudisill, with "multiple periods of qualifying service."
But the Department of Veterans Affairs asked the full Federal Circuit to reconsider the case and the majority, upon review, said federal law limits the months of benefits available to all veterans who switch from the Montgomery benefits program to the Post-9/11 program without exhausting Montgomery benefits.
Rudisill then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, arguing that as Congress has enacted each new benefit program, it has permitted veterans to earn benefits under more than one up to a 48-month aggregate cap.
"Never once has Congress required a veteran who qualified for multiple GI Bill programs, based on separate and distinct periods of qualifying service, to first forfeit or exhaust one benefit in order to obtain another, including to receive 48 months of total benefits," his lawyers told the court.
They argued the decision from the Federal Circuit "breaks Congress' core promise in the GI Bills for post-9/11 era veterans by, for the first time in our Nation's history, depriving veterans with multiple periods of qualifying service of the full use of the 48 months of education benefits that they have earned."
The Biden administration, urging the Supreme Court to turn down the case, argued that Rudisill is subject to the limitation on entitlement under federal law, as he was entitled to Montgomery benefits, used a portion of them but retained the unused Montgomery benefits, and elected to receive educational assistance through the Post-9/11 program.
"The statutory language here is unambiguous," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in a court filing. "Nothing in the text of [the laws] suggests that those provisions treat a veteran with one period of service differently from a veteran with multiple periods of service. That should be the end of the analysis."
- In:
- GI bill
veryGood! (64)
Related
- BITFII Introduce
- It's Beyoncé's birthday: 43 top moments from her busy year
- Khloe Kardashian Shares Sweet Insight Into Son Tatum’s Bond With Saint West
- Kim Kardashian Reveals Son Saint Signed “Extensive Contract Before Starting His YouTube Channel
- Volkswagen, Mazda, Honda, BMW, Porsche among 304k vehicles recalled: Check car recalls here
- Shooting of San Francisco 49ers rookie renews attention on crime in city as mayor seeks reelection
- Bachelorette’s Jenn Tran Details Her Next Chapter After Split From Devin Strader
- Zendaya and Tom Holland Are the Perfect Match During Lowkey Los Angeles Outing
- Nelly will not face charges after St. Louis casino arrest for drug possession
- Police say 11-year-old used 2 guns to kill former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
Ranking
- Some women are stockpiling Plan B and abortion pills. Here's what experts have to say.
- Michigan man wins long shot appeal over burglary linked to his DNA on a bottle
- Search goes on for missing Virginia woman, husband charged with concealing a body
- 2 Phoenix officers shot, 1 in critical condition, police say; suspect in custody
- 10 Trendy Bags To Bring to All of Your Holiday Plans
- Zendaya and Tom Holland Are the Perfect Match During Lowkey Los Angeles Outing
- ‘Fake heiress’ Anna Sorokin will compete on ‘Dancing With the Stars’ amid deportation battle
- Bowl projections: College Football Playoff gets shakeup with Miami, Missouri joining field
Recommendation
-
Ranked voting will decide a pivotal congressional race. How does that work?
-
School bus hits and kills Kentucky high school student
-
Khloe Kardashian Shares Sweet Insight Into Son Tatum’s Bond With Saint West
-
Small plane reported ‘controllability’ issues before crashing in Oregon, killing 3, officials say
-
UConn, Kansas State among five women's college basketball games to watch this weekend
-
Atlantic City casino workers plan ad blitz to ban smoking after court rejects ban
-
Sister Wives' Christine Brown Shares Vulnerable Message for Women Feeling Trapped
-
New Titanic expedition images show major decay. But see the team's 'exciting' discovery.