Supreme Court Rejects Broader Disability Review For Veterans
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered two major rulings this week — one on veterans’ disability claims and another on President Donald J. Trump’s effort to remove a Biden-appointed Federal Reserve governor facing allegations of mortgage fraud.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have to re-examine all evidence when reviewing disability benefits denials. Instead, it may only overturn decisions if there is a clear legal or factual mistake.
The case was brought by two veterans, Norman Thornton, a Gulf War veteran who argued his PTSD rating should be higher, and Joshua Bufkin, who was denied PTSD benefits after doctors disagreed about his eligibility.
Attorneys for the veterans argued that the ruling would tilt the scales toward the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) by allowing the agency’s decisions to stand even in close cases. Writing in dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed the standard forces the Veterans Court to “yield” to the VA despite congressional efforts to protect veterans.
Veterans’ groups had backed the challenge, noting that Congress intended the Veterans Court — created in 1988 and reinforced in 2002 — to give claimants the benefit of the doubt. The VA, however, maintained that its rulings should only be reversed if clearly erroneous. The majority sided with the VA, finding one doctor’s testimony in Bufkin’s case carried more weight than competing opinions.
Bufkin said he was traumatized after the military allegedly pressured him to leave his service or divorce his wife, who had threatened suicide. Thornton’s appeal for a higher PTSD rating was also rejected, with the Court finding sufficient evidence against his claim.
This marks the second high-profile Supreme Court decision of the week.
On Wednesday, the justices blocked President Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee now engulfed in an intensifying mortgage fraud scandal. The Court said Cook can remain in her position until oral arguments are heard in January 2026.
The Trump administration had dismissed Cook in August after reports surfaced that she improperly claimed multiple properties as her primary residence, a tactic that can secure more favorable mortgage terms. Federal housing regulators have since filed two separate criminal referrals over her property filings.
Bill Pulte, head of the U.S. Federal Housing Agency, confirmed the latest referral, pointing to Cook’s inconsistent statements about a Cambridge, Massachusetts condominium. In a 2021 mortgage application, she called it a “second home,” but eight months later reported it as an “investment/rental property” on a federal ethics form. Her filings from 2022 through 2025 repeatedly identified the property as an investment, contradicting her original claim.
Pulte also alleged that Cook simultaneously declared both her Atlanta condo and her Michigan home as “primary residences,” later listing her Ann Arbor property as her residence while renting it out. Such contradictions, Pulte said, fit a pattern of occupancy fraud and may also have tax implications.
Cook admitted in court filings that some documents were altered but blamed “clerical errors.” Still, watchdogs note that the timing of her loan applications suggests her lenders may not have been aware of conflicting claims, raising concerns she deliberately misled financial institutions.
“The suspicious activity here is really problematic,” CNN legal analyst Elie Honig conceded last week.
Pulte underscored the gravity of the allegations, stating:
“We have obtained a document Lisa Cook submitted to the U.S. Government while serving as Federal Reserve Governor. In it, on February 28, 2023, she represents to the U.S. Government that the Atlanta property is her personal residence. However, Lisa Cook, as a then-sitting Fed Governor and six months earlier, on September 1, 2022, appears to have listed that same property for rent.”
Cook is suing to overturn her dismissal, arguing that President Trump had no authority to remove her from the Board of Governors. But with mounting evidence of mortgage and occupancy fraud, critics say her continued presence at the Fed undermines public trust in the nation’s financial system.