Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court sides with veteran and Texas landowner in separate rulings
Washington Examiner ^ | 16 April 2024 | Kaelan Deese

Posted on 04/16/2024 9:24:06 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!

The Supreme Court released opinions on Tuesday in two cases argued earlier this term, rendering favorable rulings for a veteran plaintiff seeking educational benefits and a Texas landowner in a takings dispute.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the first opinion of the day, a 7-2 decision that sided with veteran James Rudisill in his effort to take advantage of education benefits available under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Rudisill served in the Army on three separate occasions between 2000 and 2011.

The majority decision in Rudisill v. McDonough reversed a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which has jurisdiction over veterans’ claims.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who was back at the high court on Tuesday after an unexplained absence on Monday, dissented along with Justice Samuel Alito. Thomas argued the high court’s approach “conflicts with the statute’s plain text.”

Next, Thomas wrote a majority opinion in Devillier v. Texas, a unanimous decision that held a plaintiff landowner in Texas and other property owners whose land was flooded by the state’s action to prevent flooding on the highway could pursue their claims under the Constitution’s takings clause through a cause of action under Texas law.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: propertyrights; rulings; scotus; takingclause; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
Todays rulings...
1 posted on 04/16/2024 9:24:06 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

I’m sympathetic toward the vet but the law should be enforced as it is plainly written.


2 posted on 04/16/2024 9:36:19 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

These types of laws can be rewritten and then passed by the legislatures/Congress.


3 posted on 04/16/2024 9:38:26 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

I am a Vietnam Era GI Bill veteran. I also stayed in for 22 years, putting me well into the Montgomery GI bill era. The Vietnam Era bill was MUCH more generous. Obviously, I used my Vietnam Era bill benefits.

Every time they rewrite a new GI bill, it has less and less provision in it.

The military has Active Duty tuition assistance, sometimes paying up to 90% tuition. That is a good benefit to use while keeping your GI Bill benefits for later.


4 posted on 04/16/2024 9:44:59 AM PDT by Alas Babylon! (Repeal the Patriot Act; Abolish the DHS; reform FBI top to bottom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

I was one who could have use the Montgomery GI bill, but there were so many hoops to jump thru that in the end I could never get the VA to approve it for me to use. The same thing is happening now disability benefits. Trust me, you don’t want to get me started on that.


5 posted on 04/16/2024 9:54:52 AM PDT by ducttape45 (Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; ducttape45; CitizenUSA

I really do feel for you guys. I joined in 1977 and was given entre to the Veterans Educational Assistance Program, which messed over thousands of veterans out of any education benefits at all.


6 posted on 04/16/2024 9:58:21 AM PDT by wbarmy (Trying to do better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

I used VEAP. While on terminal leave, drove to Chanute AFB, walked into AFAC and made a $10,000 deposit into my VEAP account.


7 posted on 04/16/2024 10:01:02 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fury

But VEAP was pretty dismal compared to GI Bill and Montgomery GI Bill, etc.


8 posted on 04/16/2024 10:02:00 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fury

The highest level of VEAP donations was $2700. I am curious how you put $10,000 into it?


9 posted on 04/16/2024 10:03:02 AM PDT by wbarmy (Trying to do better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; george76; Grampa Dave; Twotone; eyeamok; All

Hmmm...
Property rights decision today may have some bearing on the government imposed tragedy by breaching Irongate and Copco hydroelectric dams.

“Next, Thomas wrote a majority opinion in Devillier v. Texas, a unanimous decision that held a plaintiff landowner in Texas and other property owners whose land was flooded by the state’s action to prevent flooding on the highway could pursue their claims under the Constitution’s takings clause through a cause of action under Texas law.”


10 posted on 04/16/2024 10:03:27 AM PDT by AuntB (Trump is our Ben Franklin - Brilliant, Boisterous, Brave and ALL AMERICAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

Yes, I thought so. I was lucky and got in under the old GI Bill in 1975

I definitely used it.


11 posted on 04/16/2024 10:03:50 AM PDT by rlmorel (In Today's Democrat America, The $5 Dollar Bill is the New $1 Dollar Bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

Okay, you got me thinking. Long time ago.

YOU are correct!

I ended up maxing out VEAP ($2700) and took the remaining money and put in a 2-year CD and had a total of $10,000 for college. I remember doing the CD thinking that interest rates were pretty good.


12 posted on 04/16/2024 10:06:57 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ducttape45; Alas Babylon!

In 2000 they gave your commander say in whether you got Montgomery GI Bill benefits or not.
And if your Capt was a POS, well you didn’t get it. (NY Army National Guard)
2012, you weren’t given the option in actuality to use Montgomery GI Bill even if you were technically eligible to be under it due to prior service, they automatically put you under the post 9/11 rewrite. (Again, NY Army National Guard)
Was any of the above the correct action, no but that doesn’t matter it’s what happened.
Sick part, recruitment still talks about the Montgomery GI Bill despite it being supplanted and replaced by the post 9/11 bill.


13 posted on 04/16/2024 10:12:16 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

Ah, VEAP. I remember it well, and yes, many veterans, myself included, got screwed.


14 posted on 04/16/2024 10:16:32 AM PDT by ducttape45 (Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

That would explain a lot. I was active duty Air Force, but the last commander I had WAS a total douche. I was also laid up several months because of a bad car accident, and they wouldn’t extend my delimitating date (I think that’s what you call it). Yep, the military definitely looks after it’s own.


15 posted on 04/16/2024 10:19:19 AM PDT by ducttape45 (Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
I retired in 1998. Too late for the Global War on Terrorism, whatever that was.

Was any of the above the correct action, no but that doesn’t matter it’s what happened.

Looks like the Supremes have rectified this. It matters today.

16 posted on 04/16/2024 10:48:53 AM PDT by Alas Babylon! (Repeal the Patriot Act; Abolish the DHS; reform FBI top to bottom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Mist important take-away from this article is that Clarence Thomas was back at work...


17 posted on 04/16/2024 11:18:40 AM PDT by SuperLuminal ( Where is Samuel Adams when we so desperately need him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

We don’ need no steenkin’ “satute’s plain text”,

seven ‘Justices’ FELT in their ruling.


18 posted on 04/16/2024 11:18:40 AM PDT by A strike (There is no tyranny that cannot be justified by 'climate change')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A strike

statute’s


19 posted on 04/16/2024 11:20:38 AM PDT by A strike (There is no tyranny that cannot be justified by 'climate change')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Well, rectified until brass decides that they have this wiggle room because x or y isn’t defined narrowly or this phrase is/isn’t in there etc.
But it IS something.


20 posted on 04/16/2024 1:18:26 PM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson