Background on the Supreme Court Decision
As the fall academic term gets underway, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is renewing pressure on the Department of Veterans Affairs to comply with a landmark Supreme Court ruling affecting GI Bill benefits. In the case of Rudisill v. McDonough, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of veterans, confirming that those who qualify for both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill are entitled to use benefits under both programs, subject to the statutory 48-month cap.
The ruling rejected a long standing VA policy that forced veterans to forfeit one set of education benefits if their periods of qualifying service were continuous rather than separated by a break in service. The Court found that this interpretation was inconsistent with federal law and Congress’s intent.
VA Guidance Following the Ruling
Despite the clarity of the Supreme Court’s decision, the VA issued new guidance through its 2024 Education Directives that the VFW argues continues to unlawfully restrict access to earned benefits. According to the VFW, the guidance improperly reintroduces a break in service requirement and limits how benefits may be transferred or used.
The directives reportedly restrict dependent benefit transfers in certain cases, refuse to extend deadlines for dependents to use benefits, and deny retroactive relief to veterans and families who were harmed by the prior policy that the Supreme Court struck down. The VFW contends that these rules directly contradict the Court’s ruling.
VFW Response and Legal Action
VFW National Commander Carol Whitmore stated that the VA’s guidance undermines what veterans have earned through honorable service and what the Supreme Court has already affirmed. The organization argues that many veterans and families made education and career plans based on these benefits and now face unexpected barriers.
To challenge the VA’s interpretation, the VFW has joined a lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit alongside the Commonwealth of Virginia and individual veterans, including James Rudisill, the original petitioner in the Supreme Court case. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the Court’s decision and invalidate VA directives that limit benefit access.
VA Response and Ongoing Dispute
In its initial response, the VA attempted to dismiss the VFW as a petitioner, claiming the organization did not represent veterans affected by the ruling. The VFW has countered this claim by submitting affidavits from impacted members and is actively seeking additional testimony from veterans and families affected by the VA’s interpretation.
The organization is encouraging veterans who believe their education benefits were improperly denied or limited to come forward, emphasizing that personal accounts may play a key role in ensuring compliance with the law.
What Veterans and Families Should Know
Veterans who are eligible for both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill should be aware that the Supreme Court has affirmed their right to access both programs up to the 48-month cap. However, VA implementation of that ruling remains contested.
Veterans and dependents experiencing denied benefits, lost transfer eligibility, or missed deadlines related to this issue may wish to seek guidance from accredited representatives or veterans service organizations while the legal process continues. As with all education benefits, eligibility and outcomes depend on official VA determinations.
References
• Rudisill v. McDonough, U.S. Supreme Court
• Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
• VA Education Benefits Policy Guidance
Source Document:
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, October 2, 2025