Supreme Court to hear cases on veterans’ benefits, pet food and visas

The Supreme Court on Monday added cases to its calendar for the term beginning in October that deal with veterans’ benefits, civil liability, immigration visas and pet food consumed by a dog named Clinton and a cat named Sassie.

In a case that could have significant implications for those who serve in the military, the Supreme Court will weigh a matter involving two veterans who argue they were improperly denied medical benefits for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder related to their service.

Joshua Bufkin, who served in the Air Force from 2005 to 2006, and Norman Thornton, who served in the Army on active duty from 1988 to 1991, say they should get care under a benefit-of-the-doubt rule that requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide access to treatment when it is a close call whether the applicant qualifies. Both cases had evidence for and against them receiving benefits.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denied their appeal for benefits, saying there was no error in applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.

When that decision was reviewed by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiffs said the Court of Appeals ignored a 2002 law bolstering the veterans’ claims court “enforcement of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule” that could have cleared the way for them to get care. The Supreme Court will review the Court of Appeals interpretation of the 2002 law.

In a second case, the high court will parse the scope of a federal law that allows plaintiffs to recover civil damages when they suffer economic harm.

Commercial truck driver Douglas J. Horn sued the manufacturer of a hemp-derived CBD product, which he took for pain, after he was fired from his job for testing positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Horn claims the company marketed its product as THC-free.

Horn sued in federal court under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which allows someone injured in his “business or property” by racketeering activity to recover triple damages.

A district court found Horn did not have the standing to bring the case because the harm derived from a personal injury. The Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed that ruling, finding the plaintiff could bring suit under RICO for economic harms that result from personal injury. Other courts have also split on that point.

The company, Medical Marijuana Inc., petitioned the high court for review. The justices will decide whether economic harms such as lost wages and medical expenses that arise from personal injuries are subject to RICO suits.

The Supreme Court will also determine whether a lawsuit over pet food properly belongs in state or federal court. The owner of a dog named Clinton and a cat named Sassie filed a class-action lawsuit against two pet food manufacturers in Missouri, claiming they paid a premium for food that was misleadingly labeled prescription.

Royal Canin and Purina have argued the case implicates federal law so it should be moved from state to federal court, but after extensive legal wrangling the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that the proper venue was the state courts. The pet food manufacturers asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling, saying the Eighth Circuit strayed from precedent in remanding the case.

In the final case, the high court will decide whether to reverse a decision by the 11th Circuit of Appeals that found federal courts do not have the authority to review immigration authorities’ decisions to revoke a visa under certain circumstances.

A woman who sponsored her noncitizen husband for the visa sought the review. Federal officials granted the man a visa in 2015 but revoked it after discovering that he is alleged to have previously entered into a sham marriage for immigration purposes.

The 11th Circuit found that immigration authorities’ decision was discretionary and that federal law blocked federal courts from reviewing visa decisions in such cases.

Also Monday, the Supreme Court denied a petition by former Trump aide Peter Navarro, who was seeking release from prison pending his appeal of a conviction for contempt of Congress. He is serving a four-month sentence.

The cases are Medical Marijuana, Inc., et al. v. Bouarfa; Amina v. Mayorkas; Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger; and Bufkin v. McDonough.