BENEFITS

Johnson v. United States Congress

Issues

Does the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act strip federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to laws affecting veterans’ benefits?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”) bars federal district courts from hearing constitutional challenges to statutes that affect veterans’ benefits. Floyd Johnson seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that caps veterans benefits for incarcerated veterans. Johnson argues that the VJRA’s text does not expressly nor impliedly preclude district court review of constitutional questions. The Government responds that the VJRA expressly requires constitutional claims to proceed through the administrative review process and argues that the implied preclusion factors support this conclusion. The outcome of this case raises important questions about the adequacy of administrative review and the separation of powers.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act stripped district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this court in Johnson v. Robison, to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits.

In 2013, Petitioner Floyd Johnson was convicted of several felonies in Florida state court and then sentenced to forty years in prison. Johnson v.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Michael C. Dorf for his insights into this case.

Additional Resources

●      Linda Hersey, Incarcerated veteran’s challenge to keep disability benefits heads to Supreme Court, Stars & Stripes (June 17, 2026).

●      Nick Mordowanec, Supreme Court to Rule Whether Veterans can Bypass VA to Secure Benefits, Military.com (June 19, 2026).

●      Andrew Rice, U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear veterans’ benefit challenge, The Center Square (April 6, 2026).

●      Justin Wise, Justices to Consider Path for Veteran’s Challenge of VA Benefits, Bloomberg Law (April 6, 2026).

Submit for publication
0

M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett

Issues

In determining whether retiree health-care benefits provided under collective bargaining agreements should continue indefinitely, how should courts interpret collective bargaining agreements that are silent on the duration of retiree health-care benefits?

When interpreting a collective bargaining agreement that is silent on the duration of retiree health-care benefits, the Sixth Circuit inferred that the health-care benefits are vested (and therefore continue indefinitely). This approach, however, differs from the interpretative approach of other federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court will now resolve this circuit split. M&G Polymers USA, LLC argues that health-care benefits should terminate when the collective bargaining agreement ends unless there is a clear and explicit statement that such benefits should continue indefinitely. In opposition, several M&G retirees argue that, notwithstanding contractual silence, the parties’ intent that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely can be presumed. The resolution of this case will impact both the retention of retiree health-care benefits and the operational costs of American companies. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether, when construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, courts should presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should require at least some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an interpretation that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold.
  2. Whether, as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, different rules of construction should apply when determining whether health-care benefits have vested in pure ERISA plans versus collectively bargained plans.

In 1992, Shell Chemical Company (“Shell”) purchased a West Virginia polyester plant from The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”). See Tackett v. M & G Polymers USA, LLC, 733 F.3d 589, 593 (6th Cir. 2013).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to BENEFITS