Henderson v. Shinseki
The Court ruled that the 120-day deadline for a veteran to appeal a denied benefits claim to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is an important filing rule, but not a strict jurisdictional bar that courts must enforce no matter what.
Because the deadline is not jurisdictional, veterans who file late may still be able to argue for an exception, such as equitable tolling, instead of having their case automatically thrown out.
“We hold that it should not.”
The Court's direct answer to whether the veterans' appeal deadline is jurisdictional.
How it got here: The Veterans Court dismissed the veteran's appeal as untimely and jurisdictionally barred, the Federal Circuit affirmed en banc, and the veteran sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A Korean War veteran with a 100-percent disability rating for paranoid schizophrenia sought supplemental benefits for in-home care. After a VA regional office and the Board of Veterans' Appeals denied his claim, he tried to appeal to the Veterans Court but filed his notice of appeal 15 days after the 120-day deadline had passed.
The question before the Court
If a veteran misses the 120-day deadline to appeal a denied benefits claim to the Veterans Court, does that automatically end the case?
The Court's answer
No — the 120-day deadline for appealing to the Veterans Court is an important filing rule, but Congress did not clearly make it 'jurisdictional,' meaning courts are not required to automatically dismiss late appeals with no possibility of exceptions. The Court found nothing in the deadline's wording, its placement in the statute, or the broader pro-veteran design of the benefits system to suggest Congress wanted this rule treated as an absolute, unwaivable limit on the court's power to hear a case.
Because the veterans' benefits system is informal, non-adversarial, and built to favor veterans at every stage, the Court concluded that a rigid, no-exceptions deadline would clash with that design. The case now returns to the lower courts to decide whether this particular veteran's 15-day-late filing can still be excused.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Veterans who miss the 120-day appeal deadline because of illness, disability, or other extenuating circumstances now have a chance to argue their case should still be heard, rather than being cut off automatically. This preserves access to judicial review in a benefits system Congress designed to be forgiving toward veterans.
What changes now
The case goes back to the lower courts, which must now decide whether this veteran's 15-day-late filing qualifies for an exception, such as equitable tolling, now that the deadline is not treated as jurisdictional. The Court did not decide whether equitable tolling actually applies here or announce a general rule for when a late filing can be excused, leaving that question for further proceedings.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether this veteran's specific 15-day-late filing should be excused, or establish a general test for when equitable tolling applies to the 120-day deadline. It also did not address deadlines in other administrative or civil contexts beyond the veterans' benefits system.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that a rule counts as 'jurisdictional' — meaning it strictly limits a court's power to hear a case at all — only when Congress clearly says so; otherwise, filing deadlines are treated as ordinary 'claim-processing rules' that can sometimes be excused.
- The Court rejected the Government's argument that a prior decision, Bowles v. Russell, which treated an ordinary civil appeal deadline as jurisdictional, automatically controlled here, because Bowles involved an appeal from one court to another court under a long historical practice, not review of an administrative agency's decision.
- The Court looked at the wording and placement of the deadline statute itself, noting it appeared in a section of the veterans' law titled 'Procedure' rather than the separate section titled 'Organization and Jurisdiction,' which suggested Congress did not intend the deadline to limit the court's power to hear cases.
- The Court also compared the veterans' benefits system to Social Security disability review, another benefits system Congress designed to be informal and favorable to claimants, where similar deadlines had already been held non-jurisdictional.
- The Court emphasized the historically pro-veteran, non-adversarial nature of the VA claims process — including assistance to veterans in gathering evidence and giving them the benefit of the doubt — and applied the longstanding rule that veterans' benefits laws should be read in the veteran's favor.
- Weighing the statute's language, its placement, and this pro-veteran context together, the Court concluded there was no clear indication Congress meant the 120-day deadline to carry the harsh, no-exceptions consequences of a jurisdictional rule.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Bowles v. Russell (551 U.S. 205)
The Court said Bowles's jurisdictional appeal-deadline rule does not automatically extend to veterans' benefits review.
Reaffirms Bowen v. City of New York (476 U.S. 467)
The Court relied on this case treating Social Security appeal deadlines as non-jurisdictional to support its ruling here.