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
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.
It has been nearly a year since the chilling and jaw-dropping moment in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a would-be assassin opened fire at then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. This moment, which many feared could have been fatal, became a defining chapter in Trump’s political comeback as he overcame the terrifying assassination attempt. In an exclusive excerpt from the upcoming book
The book explores not just the immediate aftermath of the shooting, but the long-lasting impact it had on Trump’s image, his political fortunes, and his relationship with former critics. This assassination attempt, which took place on July 13, 2023, set the stage for a remarkable transformation in Trump’s campaign.
On that fateful day, Trump had just stepped off the stage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a sniper, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, took aim at the former president. Positioned on a rooftop about 100 yards away from the rally, Crooks fired at Trump. The shot rang out, sending immediate shockwaves through the crowd and the Secret Service. Trump was caught in the crosshairs of a life-threatening assassination attempt.
In an extraordinary display of professionalism and quick action, Secret Service agents immediately rushed Trump, tackling him to the ground and securing him away from the sniper’s line of fire. They quickly evacuated him from the venue, and the chaos that ensued was the stuff of nightmares. The attack on Trump was the last thing anyone had expected, yet it happened so suddenly and with such precision that even those closest to him feared for the worst.
The book reveals that, despite the severity of the situation, Trump was surprisingly composed. “Trump was sitting up in bed, still wearing his suit. A bandage covered his ear. There was blood everywhere,” the book recounts. The amount of blood was so severe that even his closest aides were convinced that Trump had been shot multiple times. The bleeding was intense and far beyond what anyone had anticipated, which led to serious concerns about his condition.
Trump himself later recalled the harrowing experience, commenting in an interview that the blood loss was so substantial that it almost felt like he was losing control. “It was bleeding like a b****,” Trump said, referring to the amount of blood he was losing. However, despite the traumatic events and the grave situation, Trump showed a level of resilience that was almost unexpected.
One of the most striking aspects of Trump’s recovery was his ability to inject humor into the situation, even in the face of danger. Within hours of the assassination attempt, Trump began making jokes, lightening the mood in what could have been a grim and somber hospital room. His aides, who were initially shaken by the gravity of the situation, began to relax when they realized Trump was alive and in relatively good spirits.
According to the book, this was a defining moment for Trump’s resilience. “They realized he was alright because he started making jokes,” the authors write. His ability to regain his sense of humor, even in the midst of such a traumatic event, reflected his mental strength and determination to survive. This humor became a hallmark of his recovery, and his aides quickly saw that Trump’s toughness extended beyond just his physical survival—it was a mental and emotional strength that helped him recover.
What was initially seen as a near-fatal event quickly became a cornerstone of Trump’s political comeback. In the days that followed the assassination attempt, Trump’s image shifted dramatically. He was no longer just a candidate seeking re-election; he had become a survivor of a potentially fatal attack. This brush with death, coupled with his remarkable recovery, reinvigorated his supporters and even drew praise from his former critics. The assassination attempt added a new dimension to Trump’s public persona. He was no longer just another political figure—he had become a symbol of survival, resilience, and perseverance.
Trump himself reflected on the close proximity of the shot during an interview. “130 yards is like sinking a one-foot putt,” he said, referring to the sniper’s distance. “It’s considered really close,” he continued, emphasizing just how close he came to death. The fact that he was able to survive such a close-range attack only added to the narrative of his political comeback, making him a more formidable figure in the eyes of both supporters and detractors.
In the wake of the shooting, Trump’s campaign took on a new tone. The narrative was no longer solely about policy or rhetoric—it was about survival. His strength in the face of adversity became a major talking point. His supporters rallied behind him, viewing him as a figure who had not only withstood a deadly attack but had emerged even stronger for it. The symbolism of his survival resonated deeply with his base, who saw it as evidence of his resilience and determination.
Additionally, Trump’s recovery process and his response to the assassination attempt marked a turning point in the 2024 election race. His campaign, which had initially been struggling to gain momentum, saw a surge in support as people rallied around his story of survival. The moment of his near-death experience became a powerful symbol, solidifying his place in the race and giving him a renewed sense of political legitimacy.
What was even more surprising, however, was the shift in attitude from some of Trump’s most vocal critics. Figures like Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, and Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, had long been antagonistic toward Trump. However, after witnessing his survival of the assassination attempt, both men publicly reassessed their views of the former president.
Bezos, in particular, was quoted as saying that Trump’s instincts showed who he was as a person. “Bezos said Trump’s instincts showed who he was, and he wanted them to have a friendship,” the book reveals. For many observers, this marked a dramatic shift in the political landscape. Some of Trump’s fiercest critics were now reaching out, acknowledging his strength and resilience.
Zuckerberg, too, was impressed by Trump’s ability to recover from such a traumatic event. Describing the moment when Trump pumped his fist in the air after the shooting, Zuckerberg remarked that it was “one of the most badass things” he’d ever seen. This unexpected support from two of Silicon Valley’s most influential figures illustrated just how transformative the assassination attempt had been for Trump’s public image.