WASHINGTON — In a significant decision for veterans-disability law, the Supreme Court of the United States on March 5 2025 ruled 7-2 that courts must apply the “clear error” standard rather than full de novo review when evaluating certain decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concerning the so-called “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule. The case is titled
Two veterans— Joshua E. Bufkin and Norman F. Thornton—brought nearly identical claims. In brief:
Bufkin served in the U.S. military and filed for service-connected disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), arguing his condition stemmed from his time in service. The VA denied his claim on the basis that a sufficient link between his military service and his PTSD had not been shown.
Thornton, a veteran who had already been awarded service-connected PTSD disability benefits, sought an increased disability rating, which the VA denied. Viện Thông Tin Pháp Luật
+1
Central to their appeals was the statutory provision that when evidence on a material issue is in “approximate balance” (that is, the evidence for and against a claim are nearly equal), the veteran is entitled to have the “benefit of the doubt.” See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).
The question before the Court: when reviewing a VA decision that the evidence is not in approximate balance (and thus the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The Court held:
The statute that governs review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) directs that it “take due account” of the VA’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1)).
The Court interpreted that “take due account” language to mean that the Veterans Court is to apply the same standards of review for legal issues (de novo) and factual issues (clear error) as set out in § 7261(a).
The Court further held that the VA’s determination whether the evidence is in “approximate balance” is a predominantly factual determination (or at most a mixed question of law and fact) and therefore is subject only to clear-error review, not de novo review.
In other words, if the VA finds the evidence not in approximate balance (and thus declines to apply the benefit-of-the-doubt rule), a veteran challenging that finding must show clear error
in the VA’s factual determination. This imposes a higher hurdle for overturning VA denials. natlawreview.com+2VFW Learning Portal+2
For veterans advocates and claimants, the practical effect is that the long-standing “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule—which gave veterans an edge when the evidence was close—becomes harder to trigger. The decision means appellate review will defer to the VA’s factual determinations unless there is a definite mistake.
The decision may shift the landscape of how benefits claims are litigated, placing greater importance on the initial record and the VA’s fact-finding, because once the VA has resolved the issue of approximate balance, it will be harder to overturn.
Some legal commentators note that this outcome may reduce the effectiveness of the veterans canon of statutory interpretation (which instructs that ambiguous statutes benefiting veterans should be construed in their favor) in this context.
The dissent warned that the decision could perpetuate a pattern of denials becoming final without robust review, potentially disadvantaging claimants whose evidence is nearly equal but not quite tipping over. Justice Jackson emphasized that the “take due account” language should have signalled a less deferential review.
The ruling immediately affects current and future appeals before the Veterans Court and Federal Circuit involving the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. Veterans and their attorneys must now carefully evaluate whether the VA’s factual findings regarding approximate balance can be challenged for clear error.
Veterans service organizations and legal practitioners will likely adapt their strategies: placing greater emphasis on securing strong factual records, medical evidence, stressor documentation, and limiting gaps in the claim file.
For veterans whose pending claims were decided under the prior understanding of review standards, the decision may prompt reconsideration of whether to appeal or seek reconsideration (if possible) under the new standard.
Policymakers and veterans advocacy groups may respond by pushing for legislative changes if they believe the decision unfairly tilts the balance against veterans.
Bottom line: In Bufkin v. Collins, the Supreme Court reaffirmed significant deference to the VA’s factual determinations when deciding whether evidence is in “approximate balance” and thus whether the veteran is entitled to the benefit-of-the-doubt. That means veterans seeking disability benefits may face a tougher climb when their supporting evidence is nearly (but not clearly) balanced.
Well, here we are. Despite President Donald Trump practically waving a neon warning sign that a shutdown would blow up in their faces, Democrats marched straight into the trap and hit the shutdown button anyway. Brilliant strategy, right?
So how’s the messaging holding up? To put it kindly—it’s a disaster. Even their usual cheerleaders in the press can’t spin this mess into anything but political self-sabotage.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) tried to seize the narrative with a “Stop the Republican Shutdown” livestream overnight. The problem? Virtually nobody tuned in. It may go down as one of the least-watched political events in recent memory—a perfect metaphor for Democrats’ flailing messaging on the shutdown.
By morning, the livestream had been rebranded as “Stop the Republican Shutdown Pt. 2,” featuring a revolving door of Democrats railing against the GOP. At one point, when Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) took the podium, the viewership tally hovered at just 38 people—hardly the groundswell of grassroots energy Democrats were hoping to project.
In a nation of 320 million people, pulling in a livestream audience that couldn’t even fill a high school gym is, to put it mildly, less than ideal. But honestly, it’s not surprising.
That’s because Democrats simply don’t have a case to make. There’s no rational argument that Republicans are to blame for this shutdown. The House already passed a clean continuing resolution—no cuts, no gimmicks—and it was Democrats in the Senate who chose to block it. Two of their own even broke ranks to side with the GOP. Had Democrats not filibustered, the government would be open today.
That’s as straightforward as it gets. The chain of responsibility is crystal clear, and Americans aren’t buying the spin. The reason Jeffries’ livestream drew fewer viewers than a backyard barbecue is simple: people aren’t interested in watching Democrats twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels trying to pin this on Republicans.
It was obvious from the start: if a shutdown hit, President Trump would seize the opportunity to go after the bloated federal bureaucracies. Now that it’s here, hundreds of thousands of government workers—overwhelmingly Democrats—are at risk of losing their jobs with little recourse. And the impact on ordinary Americans? Practically none, beyond a few shuttered bathrooms and unpaid interns. That leaves Republicans with zero incentive to cave.
The real damage is political, and it’s all landing on Democrats. They’re losing the narrative so badly that even The New York Times is pointing the finger at them. When the paper of record can’t spin the blame away, you know just how lopsided the fight has become:
Maybe Democrats think there’s some master strategy at play here, but from where I’m sitting this looks like one giant self-own. At the end of the day, they’re not going to win their pet priorities—NPR bailouts or healthcare for illegal immigrants—but they could end up sacrificing a large chunk of their bureaucratic power base.
And for what? So Hakeem Jeffries and his crew can rant into a YouTube livestream with an audience smaller than a church bingo night.