A new lawsuit wants to force the Department of Veterans Affairs to stop shorting up to 1.7 million veterans out of their GI Bill benefits, after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision expanded their ability to claim the education benefits.
Attorneys for a group of veterans, including a Northwestern University graduate’s father, and the state of Virginia filed a lawsuit Thursday, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, saying the VA is too narrowly applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough, which opened up additional GI Bill college benefits for veterans and their dependents.
Like James Rudisill, the Army veteran whose case was decided at the high court, the veterans who are suing earned college benefits under both the older Montgomery GI Bill and the more generous Post-9/11 GI Bill, which helps pay for tuition, fees, housing and books.
Federal law says veterans are entitled to tap both GI Bills for up to 48 months of college.
Rudisill had multiple separate periods of service in the military and had used about 25 months of his Montgomery benefits. He later tried to use his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to reach the 48-month maximum.
At the time, the VA said if he wanted to switch, Rudisill could get only the number of months remaining on his Montgomery plan converted to Post-9/11 benefits. That would give him 10 months of Post-9/11 benefits — not the 22 months he was expecting — and short him out of a year of school.
The Supreme Court ruled in Rudisill’s favor in April 2024, capping a nine-year battle in the lower courts.
But the VA still has not paid Rudisill his benefits, the new lawsuit says.
The VA has stated it will only apply the Supreme Court’s ruling to veterans who had a break in their service, which the lawsuit says leaves out military members who had uninterrupted service.
The VA’s website says people must have “served at least two periods of service” to benefit from the Supreme Court decision.
The lawsuit takes issue with that, saying the Supreme Court “does not focus on periods of service” but rather the length of service, which resulted in two different entitlements.
Chicago attorney Misha Tseytlin, of Troutman Pepper Locke and one of the attorneys representing the veterans, said the VA is “flouting” the Supreme Court’s decision and harming some of the longest-serving veterans.
“The VA’s mistreatment of our nation’s veterans exhibits a shocking disregard for the service that these brave men and women have given to our nation, and its attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s holding is an insult to the rule of law,” Tseytlin said.
Other plaintiffs in the case are the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
The veterans who are suing have garnered unprecedented bipartisan support, including from Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the attorneys general of 49 states and the District of Columbia, as well as the U.S. territory of Northern Mariana Islands.
One of the vets is retired Lt. Col. Paul Yoon, a Virginia resident who served almost 24 years in the Army, including as a chaplain in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo.
Yoon had planned to transfer 14 months of his remaining GI Bill benefits to his daughter, Elizabeth, a Northwestern University alum now attending Harvard Law School.
The lawsuit says earlier this month, the VA determined that it would pay Elizabeth Yoon’s college costs. But the family is concerned because the VA’s guidelines that previously disqualified her and her father remain in place.
Raoul called Yoon a “dedicated and decorated veteran” who “deserved to be recognized for the numerous sacrifices he and his family have made.”
Another plaintiff is retired Col. Toby Doran, who served more than 27 years in the Air Force and was deployed to Iraq, southwest Asia and the Mediterranean. Doran had intended to give his remaining GI Bill benefits to his son to attend Oregon State University.
Another veteran involved in the lawsuit is Kassidy Perkins, a Virginia resident who served six years in the Air Force. Perkins won her case at the Veterans Court, but the VA said it would appeal.