In a 7–2 ruling in Bufkin v. Collins, the U.S. Supreme Court sharply limited how much leeway veterans receive when seeking benefits. The justices held that courts must now defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs unless there is a “clear and obvious” error—a major shift that weakens the long-standing benefit-of-the-doubt principle that once favored veterans whenever evidence was evenly balanced. The case centered on two former service members, Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, who were both denied PTSD-related claims despite strong documentation.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, warning that the majority’s decision tilts the system against those who have already carried the heaviest burdens in defense of their country. Veterans’ organizations and legal advocates echoed those concerns, calling the ruling a step backward for fairness. Many are now urging Congress to intervene legislatively and restore protections that recognize the moral debt owed to those who served.

For decades, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule stood for more than legal interpretation—it reflected a national ethic of gratitude. When uncertainty remained, the tie went to the veteran. The new precedent shifts authority toward bureaucracy and away from human testimony, prompting questions about what justice truly means for those living with visible and invisible wounds of war. As one advocate put it, compassion, not technicality, should define a nation’s response to its veterans.

Looking ahead, lawmakers face a moral test: Will they reaffirm the principle that sacrifice deserves faith and fairness, or let procedural deference erode that promise? The Court’s decision may stand in law, but the country’s responsibility to its veterans endures. They should not have to fight another battle—this time, for the care and recognition they already earned.