Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors
473 U.S. 305 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute limiting to $10 the fee an attorney may receive for representing a veteran seeking service-connected death or disability benefits from the Veterans' Administration does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Congress enacted a statute, 38 U.S.C. § 3404(c), which limits to $10 the fee an attorney or agent may receive for representing a veteran in a claim for service-connected death or disability benefits.
- The Veterans' Administration (VA) established a non-adversarial administrative system for adjudicating these claims, designed to be informal and pro-claimant, with decision-makers required to assist claimants and resolve reasonable doubts in their favor.
- Various veterans' organizations make trained, non-attorney service representatives available, free of charge, to assist claimants in developing and presenting their claims within this system.
- The plaintiffs included two veterans' organizations and several individual veterans and a veteran's widow, some of whom were pursuing complex claims for benefits related to exposure to atomic radiation or Agent Orange.
- These individual plaintiffs alleged that due to the complexity of their cases, they required the assistance of a retained attorney.
- The plaintiffs were unable to hire attorneys to represent them before the VA specifically because the $10 statutory fee limitation made it economically infeasible for attorneys to take their cases.
Procedural Posture:
- Two veterans’ organizations, several individual veterans, and a veteran’s widow (appellees) filed a civil action against the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration (appellants) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The complaint alleged that the $10 attorney fee limitation in 38 U.S.C. § 3404(c) violated their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and their First Amendment rights.
- The District Court determined that the plaintiffs demonstrated a high likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims.
- Based on this finding, the District Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, enjoining the government from enforcing the fee limitation.
- The government (appellants) took a direct appeal from the District Court's interlocutory order to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the $10 attorney fee limitation in 38 U.S.C. § 3404(c) for representing veterans in VA benefits claims violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the First Amendment rights of claimants?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, the $10 fee limitation does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the First Amendment. The Court analyzed the statute under the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge and found the VA's procedures constitutionally sufficient. The private interest in benefits, while significant, is not based on financial need like the welfare benefits in Goldberg v. Kelly. The risk of erroneous deprivation is not unacceptably high, as the VA system is designed to be non-adversarial and pro-claimant, and claimants have access to competent, free representation from service organizations. Statistics show that attorneys provide only a slight improvement in success rates, which is insufficient to mandate their availability. The government has a substantial and long-standing interest in ensuring that the entirety of a veteran's award goes to the veteran, and in maintaining an informal, simple system that would be complicated and made more adversarial by the routine involvement of lawyers. The First Amendment claim is inseparable from the due process claim; since the process provides a meaningful opportunity for claimants to be heard, there is no violation of the right to petition or associate.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No, the nationwide preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion, but individual as-applied challenges remain viable. The record is insufficient to justify the sweeping facial invalidation of the fee limitation, as there is no demonstrated likelihood of success that the process is deficient for the 'generality of cases.' However, this decision does not foreclose the possibility that the fee limit could be unconstitutional as applied to a specific claimant or a discrete class of claimants with unusually complex cases. On remand, the District Court is free to consider individual claims that the VA procedures were constitutionally inadequate for their particular circumstances.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the fee limitation imposes an unconstitutional restraint on individual liberty. The statute, enacted in 1864, is severely outdated; a $10 fee that was once reasonable now effectively denies veterans any access to legal counsel. The government's asserted paternalistic interest is irrational, as it harms veterans with complex cases who need help, and the interest in administrative efficiency is a red herring. The right of an individual to hire an attorney of their choice in a dispute with the government is a fundamental aspect of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. This right cannot be balanced away on a utilitarian scale of costs and benefits, and the Court's analysis wrongly treats this fundamental right as a second-class interest.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, on the merits, but the Court should not have reached them. The Supreme Court's exercise of mandatory appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1252 is improper. A district court's interlocutory order granting a preliminary injunction based on a 'likelihood of success' does not constitute a final 'holding' that a statute is unconstitutional. The proper avenue for review of a preliminary injunction is the Court of Appeals, not a direct, mandatory appeal to the Supreme Court. By taking the case, the Court improperly expands its mandatory docket and prematurely decides the constitutional merits on an incomplete record.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces judicial deference to Congress in designing non-adversarial administrative benefit schemes. It establishes that the constitutional right to retain counsel is not absolute in this context and can be severely limited if the government provides a meaningful alternative process, such as the VA's pro-claimant system with free service representatives. The ruling sets a high bar for future due process challenges to such schemes, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a high probability of systemic error across the 'generality of cases,' rather than just in a subset of complex ones. It solidifies the distinction between informal benefit proceedings and adversarial adjudications like criminal trials, where the right to counsel is far more robust.
Unlock the full brief for Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors