Rudisill v. McDonough, Sec. of VA (22-888)

argument 22-888

Rudisill v. McDonough, Sec. of VA

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 10m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal dispute in Rudisill v. McDonough?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case twenty two eight eight eight, Rutusil versus McDonough, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Mr Salin,

Mr. Satelin 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, it may please the court. In section thirty three eleven of the post nine eleven GI Bill, Congress awarded veterans who served after the september eleventh attacks. um with an entitlement to wartime benefits befitting their wartime service. In Section thirty three twenty seven of the same act, Congress created a generous benefit coordination regime, wherein veterans who had earned uh peacetime Montgomery benefits with post nine eleven service could trade the unused portion of those Montgomery benefits for post nine eleven benefits. My client has no interest in trading his Montgomery benefits for his post nine eleven benefits. So he has no use for the three thirty three twenty seven election regime.

Mr. Satelin 0:52

Rather the petitioner is invoking his statutory entitlement under thirty three eleven to cash in the second period of service for post nine eleven benefits. That second period of service is only eligible for post nine eleven benefits, it's not eligible for Montgomery benefits, so there's nothing for my client to coordinate. Now the VA concedes that my client has, in fact, earned a statutory entitlement under 3311 to cash in his second period of service for wartime benefits. But the VA takes the position that Section 3327's May Elect Clause revoke that entitlement until he uses up or exhausts the Montgomery benefits he earned from his first period of service. But with all respect, In fact, a May elect clause is simply not how Congress revokes clear statutorial entitlements, and certainly not in the Byzantine manner that the VA suggests.

Mr. Satelin 1:44

Further, the exhaustion requirement that is the linchpin of the VA's interpretation finds no grounding in the statutory text and produces absurd results, such as punishing veterans with less wartime benefits for simply having served the nation longer. Finally, the VA's effort to turn a regime plainly designed to help a category of veterans into a punitive regime punishing long serving veterans has numerous contextual problems, including making thirty three twenty two's concurrent usage bar surplusage. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:18

Uh you t make it seem as though uh The election uh mechanism doesn't play much of a role in in determining uh whether or not uh petitioner uh is able to get the second set of benefits under the nine eleven benefits. I thought that the Uh thirty-three what is it? Thirty three twenty-seven uh requires election but it also has limitations. Uh you also seem to agree in your brief that Uh You cannot you're limited by the concurrent you could not have the nine eleven benefits and the Montgomery benefits simultaneously, right? That's correct. Uh but you s also you you seem not to think that the coordination provisions uh apply. So A applies Right?

Mr. Satelin 3:16

Uh so three three three two A applies because it has a shall elect.

Clarence Thomas 3:20

Okay. But then you say D doesn't apply.

Mr. Satelin 3:23

So the d the D sa D says that coordination shall be governed. And our submission is that we are not coordinating.

Clarence Thomas 3:30

Well so what are you? I mean you have a second set of benefits. I thought the whole point was to have the benefits if you if you qualified for two, it is coordinated.

Mr. Satelin 3:39

Uh no, Your Honor, we're just using. And though I think the w my friends on the other side say we would not be coordinating if we first used our Montgomery benefits and then exhausted our Montgomery benefits and then thereafter used post nine eleven benefits. I fail to understand how simply using post nine eleven benefits is coordination.

Clarence Thomas 3:57

I know but you admit that you can't have them simultaneously. If you if you say you qualify for them and you have an ent a separate entitlement for them, then why can't you use them concurrently?

Mr. Satelin 4:09

Because thirty three twenty two A specifically says you can't use them concurrently.

Clarence Thomas 4:13

So then why aren't you limited by thirty three twenty two D?

Mr. Satelin 4:17

Uh the thirty three twenty two D is not a limitation. All it is is a cross reference coordination provision.