Uncle Sam Wants You To Offer Your Expertise on Proposed Reforms to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

This Beltway Bulletin was published in the Winter 2026 issue of The Federal Lawyer.

by Cissy Jackson

As many FBA members are aware, one of the association’s longstanding policy priorities has been the establishment of independent immigration courts pursuant to Congress’ Article I power.1 The immigration court proposal was modeled in part on two other Article I courts, both of which are relevant to this issue of The Federal Lawyer: the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Pending proposals for reform present opportunities for FBA members who practice in these courts to contact their elected representatives to share their perspectives on the pros and cons of any potential changes.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), originally named the Court of Military Appeals, was established in 1950 with the enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.2 The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the bill explained that the new court would remove “all military influence of persuasion” from appellate review of military courts-martial decisions.3 Thirty-eight years later, the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, later renamed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), was established to provide similarly independent judicial review of benefits decisions by the Veterans Administration (VA).4 Prior to the establishment of these courts, there was no direct judicial review of military or veterans agency adjudications with very significant consequences for current or former members of the armed forces.5

Judges for both the CAAF and the CAVC are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to 15-year terms. Judges who serve on the CAAF must be civilians and may not have been in active regular military service within seven years of their appointment; however, judges on the CAVC can be and often are veterans. Neither the CAAF nor the CAVC require special qualifications or training for attorneys seeking admission to practice. An applicant simply must be admitted to practice and in good standing with the highest court of any state, the District of Columbia, or a United States territory or commonwealth.6

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 was intended to streamline the veterans appeals process,7 but with a claims backlog at the VA of over 134,000 and average appeal disposition times often exceeding 18 months,8 members of Congress continue to seek further improvements.

The VA Appeals Reform Act of 2025, introduced by Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), would make a number of process reforms, including:

1. Requiring the Secretary to provide claimants with their claims file, other key documents, and contact information for the adjudicator and independent medical experts within 90 days of a request for such assistance by a claimant;
2. Allowing veterans to supplement the evidentiary record during higher-level review, and clarifying the grounds for re-adjudicating a supplemental claim;
3. Imposing a 90-day deadline for the VA to take action on returned or remanded claims;
4. Allowing reasonable attorney fees for filing a notice of intent to appeal certain VA decisions;
5. Making changes to the appointment, performance reviews, and scheduling of hearings for members of the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA); and
6. Creating an electronic case management and filing system for processing appeals of BVA decisions.

In addition, the legislation would expand the jurisdiction of the CAVC by replacing the “clearly erroneous” standard with an “arbitrary and capricious” standard and by providing for trials de novo in certain circumstances. It would also expand the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to cover all final decisions of the CAVC. The bill is pending before the House Committees on Veterans Affairs and the judiciary. There is plenty of room for interested FBA members to offer support or opposition to this bill, as it has not yet seen any committee action.

Also pending this Congress is the “Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2025,” introduced by Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL), with 11 bipartisan cosponsors. A related bill, which also has bipartisan support, is pending in the Senate. Among other reforms, both versions of this legislation would expand the jurisdiction of the CAVC in class action cases by providing supplemental jurisdiction over certain benefits claims by class members who are still awaiting issuance of a final decision. This bill also would grant the BVA the authority to aggregate appeals involving “common questions of law or fact,” and would require an assessment of the feasibility of elevating the authority of the BVA by permitting it to issue precedential decisions with respect to questions of law or fact. The latter proposal suggests a potential shift toward establishing the BVA as a true intermediate appellate court, similar to the Military Courts of Criminal Appeals.

In June 2025, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs considered the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act and a number of other VA-related bills at a legislative hearing at which both the CAVC and the BVA provided oral and written testimony. The clerk of the CAVC, while refraining from commenting on “the advisability or breadth” of any of the proposed reforms, offered some words of caution and highlighted some potential unintended consequences.9 The BVA witness, on the other hand, clearly indicated which proposed reforms the VA supports, which it does not support, and where it has concerns.10 Among the reforms the VA opposes are the provisions allowing aggregation of claims, the expansion of CAVC’s jurisdiction to include class members’ non-final benefits claims, and giving BVA decisions precedential authority. In light of the substantial concerns and outright opposition to some provisions from the VA and the CAVC, interested FBA members could also weigh in, as it is likely that this legislation will undergo some modifications before it advances.

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

There is currently no pending legislation to reform the CAAF, but there has been recent public debate about whether it is time to eliminate the court entirely and transfer its jurisdiction to one or more of the Article III courts.11 One commentator argues that the rationale for a separate court of appeals for military cases has been weakened by several developments, including “the filling in of whatever doctrinal gaps there were when the UCMJ took effect; the assimilation of military law to civilian law generally; the rarity of appeals that demand familiarity with military arcana; the emergence of new concerns, such as the rights of victims; the persistence of unlawful command influence and the congressional response to that persistence; structural changes; the role of evolving international standards; and the collapse of the military justice system caseload.”12 While agreeing with a number of these observations, another commentator argues that proponents of dispensing with the CAAF overlook the purpose of military law and how that purpose is fundamental to the rationale for a dedicated appeals tribunal. He contends that, “[g]eneralist Article III courts are not equipped, either constitutionally or practically, to supervise this warfighting tool that only Congress and the President can properly wield.” After outlining potential adverse consequences of terminating the CAAF, this commentator concludes that doing so is, ultimately, “unworkable.”13

You Can Make a Difference

The FBA has not taken a position on either of the bills discussed above or on the abolition of the CAAF. However, FBA members who practice in the CAAF or the CAVC are ideally positioned to provide expert insights that can have a meaningful impact on legislation affecting these courts. Members of Congress welcome input from the FBA because of its established reputation as a trusted, nonpartisan source of information on issues affecting federal courts and federal jurisprudence. FBA members who are interested in engaging with Congress on VA and CAVC reforms can watch the June 2024 hearing here and can review witness statements and other supporting materials here. FBA members also can share their expertise with the courts themselves, when they announce proposed rules and invite public comment. Notices of proposed rules can be found in the Federal Register, and the portal for submitting comments is here. The author would like to thank FBA Veterans and Military Law Section Legislative Observer Carol Scott for her advice and assistance with this article.

Cissy Jackson served as counsel and national security adviser to Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala. before joining ArentFox Schiff. She also has extensive experience in the private practice of law, handling white collar, False Claims Act, grand jury investigation, and commercial property tax appeal matters. Jackson has represented multinational corporations, small businesses, and individuals in high-stakes civil and criminal litigation.

Endnotes

1 “The Congress shall have power to . . . constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;” U.S. Const., art. I, § 8.

2 See United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/about.htm.

3 Id.

4 In 1989, the VA became a cabinet-level agency and was renamed the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, but it still is referred to as the VA. https://department.va.gov/history/history-overview/

5 The President was, however, required to confirm courts-martial death sentences, officer dismissals, and sentences of general officers.

6 See Rules of Practice and Procedures, https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/library/Rules/Rules2025SepAmendedThrough26September2025.pdf; https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/rule46.php

7 See Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act Implementation, https://trumpadministration.archives.performance.gov/veterans_affairs/2019_dec_VA_Appeals_Improvement.pdf

8 See Claims Backlog, https://www.benefits.va.gov/reports/mmwr_va_claims_backlog.asp; How Long Do VA Appeals Take in 2025? Understanding Timelines and What You Can Do, May 4, 2025, Veterans Valor, https://vetvalor.com/how-long-do-va-appeals-takein-2025-understanding-timelines-and-what-you-can-do/

9 https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR09/20250624/118409/HHRG-119-VR09-Wstate-WagnerT-20250624.pdf

10 https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR09/20250624/118409/HHRG-119-VR09-Wstate-DeichertE-20250624.pdf

11 See, e.g., https://www.nimj.org/uploads/1/3/5/5/135587129/appellate-5750-fidell.pdf; https://populistpolicy.org/doge-analysisof-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-armed-forces-caaf/

12 https://www.nimj.org/uploads/1/3/5/5/135587129/appellate-5750-fidell.pdf

13 https://www.nimj.org/uploads/1/3/5/5/135587129/appellate-6039-hargis.pdf