In a decision poised to reshape how disability claims are evaluated for millions of veterans, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal courts are not required to reexamine whether the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) correctly applied the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule when deciding claims.

This case, Bufkin v. Collins, emerged from appeals by two veterans, Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, whose disability claims were denied—even though the evidence in both cases was nearly evenly balanced. They argued that the courts should have given more weight to a longstanding VA standard meant to favor veterans in such scenarios.

The ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, now limits the courts’ role to reviewing VA decisions for “clear error” rather than reevaluating whether the evidence should have favored the veteran under the benefit-of-the-doubt principle. The majority’s position reflects a broader judicial philosophy favoring agency deference over judicial activism in administrative review. But for many veterans and advocates, it feels like a betrayal of a hard-won safeguard meant to recognize the sacrifices of military service.

What Is the Benefit-of-the-Doubt Rule

The VA’s benefit-of-the-doubt rule was designed to be a veteran-friendly standard. In cases where evidence both for and against a claim is roughly equal, the VA is directed to side with the veteran. The rationale? It’s often difficult to provide concrete proof of military service-related injuries, especially psychological trauma or injuries sustained in combat zones decades ago.

This standard recognizes the unique burdens veterans face and serves as a moral counterweight to the bureaucratic red tape many encounter while navigating the VA system.

The Cases Behind the Decision

Joshua Bufkin

A former Air Force serviceman, Bufkin served from 2005 to 2006. Years after discharge, he filed a claim for PTSD, which he attributed to personal stress related to a threatened suicide by his spouse and the pressures of military police training. He was granted a hardship discharge, and despite conflicting VA medical opinions, his claim was denied. The VA found insufficient proof that his PTSD stemmed directly from military service.

Norman Thornton

Thornton, an Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War, initially received a 10% disability rating for PTSD, later increased to 50%. He sought a higher rating, arguing that the severity of his condition was underestimated. Again, despite near-equal evidence from competing medical evaluations, the VA upheld its decision.

The Legal Dispute: What the Veterans Wanted

Bufkin and Thornton argued that courts reviewing their cases should have performed a fresh benefit-of-the-doubt analysis. In essence, they wanted the judiciary to step in where they believed the VA had failed to apply its own rules fairly.

Their legal team argued that the Veterans Court should not simply rubber-stamp VA decisions unless “clear error” was found. Instead, it should act as a check—ensuring that when evidence is truly balanced, the veteran’s claim receives the benefit Congress intended.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Clear Error Is the Threshold

In siding with the VA, the majority of justices held that courts are not obligated to conduct their own benefit-of-the-doubt review. Justice Thomas wrote that such reviews should be limited to checking for “clear error,” not second-guessing how the VA interprets balanced evidence.

“The Veterans Court must review the VA’s application of the rule the same way it would review any other determination,” Thomas noted—suggesting that unless the VA’s decision is clearly wrong, it stands.

This ruling places more power in the VA’s hands and narrows the scope of judicial review. Going forward, courts will not act as a second layer of judgment but instead merely verify that the VA hasn’t made a glaring mistake.

The Dissent: Justices Jackson and Gorsuch Push Back

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, raising serious concerns about veterans’ access to justice. Jackson criticized the decision as a misreading of Congressional intent, arguing that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was enacted specifically to protect veterans from the very kind of bureaucratic entanglements now being reinforced.

She warned that the majority’s ruling allows agencies to pay lip service to the rule without real accountability, undermining one of the few protections veterans have in an otherwise imbalanced system.

Gorsuch agreed, stating that in matters where veterans face difficulty proving their claims—often due to the nature of combat or outdated records—courts should be more active, not less.

The Impact on Veterans Nationwide

For the estimated 5.4 million veterans receiving VA disability benefits—and the countless more who will apply—the ruling raises the bar. No longer can veterans count on the courts to reevaluate balanced claims unless they can demonstrate a “clear error,” a notoriously difficult legal standard to meet.

The ruling will likely lead to fewer claim approvals and makes the appeals process steeper and more bureaucratic. It shifts more responsibility onto veterans to produce airtight evidence from the outset—something that is especially challenging in cases of PTSD or Gulf War illness, where definitive proof is elusive.

What This Means for the VA and Administrative Law

This decision could extend beyond veterans’ benefits. It reinforces a trend in administrative law known as “agency deference,” where courts give significant leeway to federal agencies’ decisions unless they are blatantly wrong. While this can make agencies more efficient, it often leaves individuals—especially those without legal representation—without meaningful recourse.

The ruling may encourage the VA to stand firm in borderline cases, knowing courts are less likely to intervene. Critics warn this could result in a more adversarial and less compassionate process for those seeking help after serving their country.

A Call for Legislative Reform?

The outcome of Bufkin v. Collins has already reignited conversations in Congress. Lawmakers sympathetic to veterans’ issues may seek to clarify the benefit-of-the-doubt rule through new legislation, ensuring courts are empowered to conduct more thorough reviews.

Veterans advocacy groups are also stepping up. Many are calling for reforms, such as:

• Mandating judicial review of benefit-of-the-doubt rulings
• Requiring clearer standards for what constitutes “balanced” evidence
• Funding legal assistance for veterans navigating the complex claims process

A System Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court’s ruling has thrust the VA disability system back into the spotlight. At its heart, this case asked a deeply human question: when our veterans come forward with claims rooted in suffering and service, how far should our institutions go to give them the benefit of the doubt?

For Bufkin, Thornton, and many others, the answer from the nation’s highest court was clear—though not what they’d hoped for.