Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Victor B. Skaar v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2021-1757, 2021-1812 · judgment September 8, 2022
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Congress established the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Veterans Court) and granted it “exclusive jurisdiction to review adverse decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals” (Board), a component of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 38 U.S.C. § 7252. After VA acknowledged “that the Veterans Court has authority to certify a class for class action or similar aggregate resolution procedure,” Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312, 1318 (2017), the Veterans Court promulgated rules for class practice. Petitioner Victor B. Skaar is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force who was exposed to radiation at Palomares, Spain, where he and about 1,400 other airmen worked as a unit to clean up after a military nuclear accident. In 2019, VA denied his claim for benefits, relying on a flawed methodology that VA has used to calculate the radiation exposure of each Palomares veteran. On appeal, the Veterans Court certified a class of Palomares veterans subject to that methodology whose disability claims have been or will be denied, then held that VA had failed to justify its reliance on the methodology. A Federal Circuit panel reversed the class certification order. It held Section 7252 makes exhaustion a jurisdictional requirement and thus the Veterans Court may not include in the class veterans who have not yet received a “decision of the Board,” even as an exercise of its authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). By a 7-5 vote, a divided Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc. The question presented is: Does the Veterans Court have statutory or inherent authority to include veterans whose individual claims are not yet exhausted in a class seeking injunctive relief, where the court has jurisdiction over a named representative's claim? (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael J. Wishnie
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Amicus briefs
4 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Jun 20 2023Petition DENIED.
- May 30 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
- May 30 2023Reply of petitioner Victor B. Skaar filed. (Distributed)
- May 15 2023Brief of respondent Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs in opposition filed.
- Apr 18 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 15, 2023.
- Apr 17 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 1, 2023 to May 15, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 30 2023Brief amici curiae of National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc., et al. filed.
- Mar 30 2023Brief amici curiae of Civil Procedure and Administrative Law Scholars filed.
- Mar 30 2023Brief amici curiae of National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. filed.
- Mar 29 2023Amicus brief of National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium not accepted for filing. (April 03, 2023) (duplicate efiling)
- Mar 29 2023Brief amicus curiae of National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium filed.
- Mar 03 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 1, 2023.
- Mar 02 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 30, 2023 to May 1, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 24 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 30, 2023)