快活视频

 

Recinto v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 02-07-2013
  • Case #: 11-16341
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Gould for the court; Circuit Judges Sack and M. Smith.

The Veteran鈥檚 Administration鈥檚 (鈥淰A鈥) exclusive use of the National Personnel Records Center (鈥淣PRC鈥) to determine eligibility for benefits under the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund (鈥淔VEC鈥) does not violate due process under the Fifth Amendment.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 established the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund (鈥淔VEC鈥) to recognize members of the Filipino military conscripted into United States service during WW II. Veteran鈥檚 Administration (鈥淰A鈥) denied benefits to a group of American citizens who it could not verify as eligible Filipino World War II veterans or their widows (鈥淰eterans鈥). On appeal to the District court, Veterans claimed that exclusive use of National Personnel Records Center (鈥淣PRC鈥) to determine eligibility violated their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Veterans鈥 due process claim because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims holds exclusive jurisdiction over 鈥渃onsideration of veterans鈥 individual benefits decisions鈥 and Veterans鈥 claims here, even viewed 鈥渁s a systematic challenge,鈥 would involve inquiry into a representative sample of similar denials. The Ninth Circuit did find jurisdiction over Veterans鈥 facial equal protection claim. Nevertheless, the court did not find Veterans established either that the 鈥淩elease鈥 or 鈥淩ecognition of Service鈥 provisions of the FVEC created a 鈥渘ew and distinguishable classification鈥 meriting strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that the FVEC is 鈥渂ased on status as a territory and not on...race, nationality, or alienage and is constitutional under rational basis review.鈥 Neither, the Court continued, did Veterans allege that the 鈥渟tatus as a territory鈥 classification was created for a discriminatory purpose and, thus, dismissal under 12(b)(6) was appropriate. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top