The U.S. Supreme Court on April 6 agreed to consider a veteran’s fight over disability benefits.

The justices granted the petition of Floyd Johnson in an unsigned order. The high court did not explain its decision. No justices dissented.

Johnson served from 1983 to 1985 in the U.S. Army. While on duty, he was involved in a combat training exercise that “turned deadly.” Despite this, he earned medals and commendations and was honorably discharged, the petition said.

In 2013, Johnson was convicted of several felonies and given a long prison term. While doing his time, he received a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Based on this diagnosis, he sought service-connected disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), according to the petition.

PTSD, which used to be called “shell shock” and “combat fatigue,” occurs in individuals who have experienced or witnessed a traumatic event or set of circumstances, the American Psychiatric Association says.

At first, the department classified him with a disability rating of 70 percent. Johnson filed an administrative appeal, and the disability rating was raised to 80 percent, the petition said.

A department website reports that a disability rating, which is a measurement of an individual’s ability to function under the ordinary conditions of everyday life, is based “on the severity of your service-connected condition,” and is used “to determine how much disability compensation you’ll receive each month, as well as your eligibility for other VA benefits.”

At the same time, Section 5313 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code reduces the benefits due to veterans if they have been incarcerated for more than 60 days for a felony conviction. Those veterans may not receive benefits that correspond to more than a 10 percent disability rating, regardless of how severe their service-related disability may be.

“As a result, a veteran whose arm was amputated—rated at 80 percent disabling … would be compensated at the same level as a servicemember who lost an eyebrow,” the petition said.

Representing himself, Johnson sued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, arguing that Section 5313 violated the bill of attainder clause and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The bill of attainder clause forbids Congress from passing laws that punish specific individuals or easily identifiable groups without trial. Johnson sued the U.S. Congress because it enacted the statute, the petition said.

A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit then reversed, ruling that Johnson’s appeal presented a “nonfrivolous argument that his claim was wrongly dismissed.” After oral argument, the circuit court held that Johnson could not sue Congress because that body had not waived sovereign immunity for challenges to Section 5313, the petition said.

Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents governments from being sued unless they consent to being sued.

Usually, a plaintiff who sues the wrong federal defendant would be allowed to amend the complaint to name the right defendant; in this case, the secretary of Veterans Affairs. But the 11th Circuit ruled that there would be no point in amending the legal complaint because the federal Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988 barred district courts from hearing this kind of case.

The 11th Circuit acknowledged that other circuit courts disagree on this point but held that Congress “vested exclusive jurisdiction” over constitutional challenges to veterans’ benefit laws in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the petition said.

In his petition, Johnson’s attorneys argued the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act does not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction concerning constitutional claims.

Because lower courts are split on the issue, the Supreme Court should take up the case, the petition said.

“A veteran’s access to the courts should not vary depending on where he lives,” it said.

The Trump administration, representing Congress, argued that the 11th Circuit’s ruling in the case was correct, but said it was important for the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split.

“The question presented is recurring and important; and this case is a suitable vehicle for resolving the question,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a brief.

“This Court’s review is therefore warranted.”

The case is expected to be heard during the Supreme Court’s next term, which begins in October.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared April 7, 2026, in The Epoch Times.