Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

A veteran who served during the Vietnam Era was awarded service connection for PTSD in 1993, effective from May 1991, with a 10% disability rating. In 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals found clear and unmistakable error in the earlier decision and granted an earlier effective date of May 1983. The Board remanded the claim to the regional office to implement the earlier date and determine whether a higher rating was warranted. After the regional office denied a higher rating in a supplemental statement of the case, the Board preemptively issued its own denial before the veteran filed a required notice of disagreement.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reviewed the Board’s action after the appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, seeking vacatur and remand. The government conceded the Board lacked jurisdiction but argued for vacatur and dismissal, not remand. The Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision and dismissed the appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction since no notice of disagreement had been filed. The court emphasized the veteran had a separate, properly noticed appeal pending regarding the merits of the regional office’s denial, and thus removed the ultra vires Board decision as an obstacle.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the veteran qualified as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act for purposes of seeking attorney’s fees. The Federal Circuit held that vacatur of the ultra vires Board decision materially altered the legal relationship between the parties and constituted success on the merits of the judicial review action, conferring prevailing party status. The court reversed the Veterans Court’s denial of fees and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "GREENIDGE v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A group of current and prospective military service members challenged a new federal policy that disqualified individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or those perceived as expressing a gender identity different from their sex assigned at birth from serving in the military. This policy, known as the Hegseth Policy, was issued following an executive order by the President in 2025. The policy went further than prior military policies by not only excluding individuals with a recent diagnosis of gender dysphoria or those undergoing transition, but by broadly disqualifying anyone with any history of the condition or who had attempted social transition, regardless of current fitness or stability.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. After extensive hearings, the District Court found the Hegseth Policy to be motivated by animus against transgender individuals, characterizing it as a blanket ban that was not justified by legitimate military interests. The court applied intermediate scrutiny, concluded that the policy was not substantially related to the stated goals of military readiness or cohesion, and found that it violated the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the policy against both current servicemembers and those seeking to enlist.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals held that the Hegseth Policy, as applied to current servicemembers, was likely unconstitutional because it relied on arbitrary classifications and was motivated at least in part by impermissible animus. The court affirmed the preliminary injunction for current servicemembers but vacated it as to individuals seeking to join the military, reasoning that the equities and public interest differed for prospective enlistees. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Talbott v. USA" on Justia Law

A divorced couple shares joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children, alternating weekly custody as part of their agreement. After their separation, the father resided at his parents’ home, where he exercised his custodial time with the children. When he received orders for a seven-month overseas military deployment, he filed an emergency petition to allow his parents to assume all of his court-ordered custodial time during his absence. The mother objected to this arrangement, expressing concerns about the children’s wellbeing and her strained relationship with the paternal grandparents.The Madison County Chancery Court held a hearing and denied the father’s request to delegate his full custodial time to his parents. Instead, the court granted the grandparents extended temporary visitation during the deployment and ordered the mother to facilitate the children’s communication with their father and make them available during his leave, as required by statute. The father moved for clarification and reconsideration, arguing that the trial court misapplied Mississippi Code Section 93-5-34 by not maintaining the “status quo,” but the trial court denied his motion.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the chancery court correctly interpreted Section 93-5-34 and whether it abused its discretion by granting only visitation rather than full custodial delegation. The Supreme Court held that the statute does not permit a deployed parent to unilaterally delegate custodial time; the authority to determine or delegate custody rests with the court, and the best interest of the child remains paramount. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny full custodial delegation and instead grant substantial visitation to the grandparents. The judgment of the Madison County Chancery Court was affirmed. View "Solop v. Solop" on Justia Law

The appellant, a veteran who served in the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987, sought service-connected disability benefits for several conditions, including PTSD, migraine headaches, and frostbite injuries to his hands and feet. Over the years, he received increasing ratings for these conditions and was awarded special monthly compensation (SMC) at the (l) rate for aid and attendance needs due to PTSD. In April 2020, he filed a notice of disagreement regarding a VA regional office decision. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals later granted him additional SMC awards, including at the (o) and (r) rates, for combinations of his disabilities, but did not assign effective dates for these new awards, instead leaving that determination to the regional office.Following a joint motion for partial remand, the Board reconsidered and again awarded the additional SMC ratings but still withheld assigning effective dates. The appellant challenged this before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing the Board was required to decide the effective dates for the new SMC awards. The Veterans Court concluded that determining the effective date for an SMC award is a separate, downstream issue from entitlement and that the Board was not required to decide this issue when awarding SMC. Therefore, it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Veterans Court did not commit legal error in its jurisdictional determination. The Federal Circuit agreed that the assignment of effective dates for SMC awards is a downstream issue for the regional office to decide and is not automatically before the Board unless specifically appealed. Consequently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s dismissal in part and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "DAVIS v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A married couple, both active-duty military members, separated after nearly two decades of marriage and executed a notarized separation agreement in 2020 while stationed in Okinawa. The agreement provided that the wife would receive $1,500 per month in maintenance until divorce, 20% of the husband’s military retirement pay upon his retirement, and be named as beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The wife later initiated a divorce in South Dakota, and the parties submitted a stipulation and settlement agreement incorporating key provisions from their separation. The divorce decree was filed in February 2021. Over time, the husband failed to make some required maintenance payments and, after retiring, did not pay the wife her portion of his retirement nor complete the SBP paperwork. The wife sought contempt and modifications, while the husband argued compliance was impossible due to deficiencies in the decree.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Charles Mix County, declined to hold the husband in contempt, finding the divorce decree’s orders too vague for enforcement. The court denied modification of the property division, found no fraud or coercion, and refused to vacate the decree. It reduced the wife’s retirement share from 20% to 16.1% using a coverture formula, ordered payment of $5,000 in arrears plus 8% interest, and instructed the husband to effectuate the SBP. Both parties appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that reducing the wife’s retirement share below the agreed 20% was error, as was applying an 8% rather than the statutory 10% interest rate to arrears. The court remanded for correction of those issues, but affirmed the denial of contempt, refusal to vacate the decree, and the exclusion of additional payments for stimulus or tax refunds. The court also found no due process violations or abuse of discretion in declining to take sworn testimony. View "Shevling v. Major" on Justia Law

Two former pilots for a major airline, who also served as reservists in the United States Air Force, brought suit against their employer. They claimed that the airline forced them out of their jobs because of their military service obligations, and that the company’s handling of their pension contributions and vacation accrual during military leave violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The pilots had been investigated by the airline for abusing military and sick leave policies, including instances where they claimed sick leave from the airline but performed military duties on those days, and for reporting false military obligations to avoid work.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the airline on all claims. The court found that, while the pilots established a prima facie case that their military service was a motivating factor in their resignations, the airline demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions: the pilots’ abuse of sick-leave benefits. Regarding the pension-contribution claim, the district court determined that the pilots’ rates of compensation were not reasonably certain and that the airline’s method of calculating pension contributions during military leave exceeded statutory requirements. For the vacation-time claim, the court held there was no evidence showing that pilots on comparable non-military leave accrued vacation time, as required by USERRA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all counts. The appellate court held that the airline’s actions were justified by the pilots’ misuse of sick leave, the pension calculations met or exceeded legal obligations, and the vacation accrual policy did not violate USERRA because no comparable leave existed. View "McLean v. Delta Air Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

A former United States Navy Captain was convicted by a general court-martial of attempted sexual assault of a child, attempted sexual abuse of a child, and other offenses. The events leading to the charges occurred while he was stationed at a U.S. military base in Italy, where he engaged in electronic communications with a 14-year-old girl, S.M. After the girl’s parents, who worked for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), became aware of the contact, NCIS initiated an investigation. An NCIS agent posed as S.M. online, leading to sexually explicit exchanges and ultimately a sting operation in which the accused arrived at a house expecting to meet S.M., but was arrested.The general court-martial found the accused guilty on several specifications, and he was sentenced to eight years’ confinement and dismissed from the Navy. On appeal, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions, rejecting his argument that his intent to commit the offenses was only conditional and thus insufficient for attempt under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied further review.The accused then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, arguing that the military courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCMJ and that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Italy deprived the United States of jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the petition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the military courts had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCMJ, and the petitioner’s arguments regarding conditional intent went to the merits, not jurisdiction. The court also held that the NATO SOFA did not deprive the military courts of jurisdiction and could not be enforced by the petitioner in this context. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Dorrbecker v. Howard" on Justia Law

Two claimants, a veteran and a non-attorney representative, each appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals after an unfavorable Veterans Affairs regional office decision. In both cases, the Board dismissed their appeals as untimely due to a clear miscalculation of the filing deadline. Each claimant then filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), seeking to overturn the erroneous Board dismissals and to have their cases reinstated for Board review.While the appeals were pending before the Veterans Court, the Board recognized its mistake and, on its own initiative, reinstated both claimants’ cases to its active docket, giving them the relief they had initially sought in their Veterans Court appeals. For one claimant, the Board later granted the full fee award requested; for the other, the Board remanded the benefit claims, and the regional office granted most but not all of the requested benefits.The Veterans Court, sitting en banc and by panel, dismissed both appeals as moot, holding that the Board’s actions rendered further judicial relief unnecessary. The court reasoned that the claimants had already received the relief available through judicial review, so no live controversy remained. The claimants argued that the filing of a notice of appeal divested the Board of jurisdiction and rendered its subsequent actions void.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the claimants lacked standing. The Federal Circuit held that, because the claimants had obtained all the specific relief sought prior to appealing to the Federal Circuit, there was no remaining injury that the court could redress. Accordingly, the court dismissed both appeals for lack of jurisdiction. View "KERNZ v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Kenneth Karwacki was convicted by a special court martial of delivering peyote to fellow soldiers and received a bad-conduct discharge from military service. Later, he applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Wisconsin. The state denied his application under Wis. Stat. §941.29(1m)(b), which bars firearm possession by anyone convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in Wisconsin. Although the military court labeled his offense a misdemeanor, Wisconsin classified his conduct as a felony under its own laws.Karwacki brought a federal lawsuit, arguing that Wisconsin’s decision to treat his military misdemeanor conviction as a state-law felony violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution and his Second Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered judgment in favor of the state, rejecting Karwacki’s claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to federal court martial convictions because such proceedings are not “judicial Proceedings of any other State,” nor has Congress prescribed any effect for court martial judgments in the states. The court also concluded that Wisconsin did not fail to give effect to the court martial’s judgment, as it imposed only collateral consequences under state law. Addressing the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that neither the federal nor Wisconsin’s statutory scheme is facially invalid, and that individuals convicted of distributing illegal drugs are not entitled to as-applied relief from firearms disabilities. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed. View "Karwacki v Kaul" on Justia Law

An attorney entered into a fee agreement with a veteran to represent him in a claim for increased disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The agreement provided that the attorney would receive 20% of any past-due benefits awarded, and this fee would be paid directly by the VA from any such award. The veteran had previously requested an increased rating on his own, and after the attorney became involved and filed a notice of disagreement, the VA granted the increase, awarding past-due benefits. The VA initially determined the attorney was entitled to the agreed fee but failed to withhold it from the benefits paid to the veteran, resulting in an overpayment. The VA later paid the attorney and recouped the overpaid amount from the veteran’s future benefits.Subsequently, the veteran challenged the reasonableness of the attorney’s fee before the VA Office of General Counsel (OGC), which concluded that the fee was excessive considering the attorney’s limited involvement and the fact that the award was based on the veteran’s earlier request. The OGC reduced the allowed fee and ordered the attorney to refund the difference to the veteran. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed this decision. The attorney appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which also affirmed the Board’s determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under 38 U.S.C. § 7263(d), it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court regarding the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees in such proceedings. The statute clearly provides that such orders by the Veterans Court are final and may not be reviewed by any other court. Therefore, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "KENDALL v. COLLINS " on Justia Law