The Johnson Rule: Exclusive Veterans-Benefits Review & the End of District-Court Jurisdiction over Facial Constitutional Challenges

Introduction

In Floyd D. (Donald) Johnson v. United States Congress, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit confronted two pivotal questions: (1) May an incarcerated veteran sue the United States Congress directly to attack the constitutionality of 38 U.S.C. § 5313—a statute that reduces disability benefits for certain felons? (2) If not, should the veteran be permitted to amend his complaint to name a different defendant and press a facial constitutional challenge in the district court?

Mr. Johnson, serving a forty-year state sentence, saw his veterans’ disability compensation reduced to 10% once he exceeded sixty days of incarceration. Proceeding pro se, he sued Congress, alleging the statute was an unconstitutional bill of attainder and violated equal protection. The district court assumed—without deciding—that it had jurisdiction, but dismissed the action as frivolous.

On appeal (with court-appointed counsel), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, the court set a sweeping new precedent: district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over both as-applied and facial constitutional challenges to veterans’-benefit statutes; exclusive review lies in the specialized pathway created by the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA). The decision also reiterates that Congress enjoys sovereign immunity from suit absent an explicit waiver.

Summary of the Judgment

• Sovereign Immunity Bar: Congress has not waived its immunity for suits challenging legislation; therefore, federal courts have no jurisdiction over claims naming Congress as defendant.
• No Futile Amendment: Even if Johnson substituted a “proper” defendant (e.g., the Secretary of Veterans Affairs), the district court would still lack jurisdiction because the VJRA channels all questions—constitutional or otherwise—through the VA administrative process, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and ultimately the Federal Circuit.
• Elimination of Facial/As-Applied Distinction: Relying heavily on Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, the Eleventh Circuit rejected earlier case law permitting facial challenges in district court. The court held that § 511(a) of Title 38, coupled with §§ 7252 and 7292, plainly manifests Congress’s intent to preclude district-court jurisdiction for any constitutional attack that affects benefit decisions.
• Disposition: District court’s judgment vacated; case remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

a. Sovereign-Immunity Authorities

• United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) – “The United States is immune unless it consents.”
• FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) – Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional.
• United States v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506 (1940) – Federal officials cannot waive sovereign immunity.

b. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Cases

• Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) – Prohibits “hypothetical jurisdiction.”
• Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869) – When jurisdiction ceases, court must dismiss.

c. Statutory Channeling Cases

• Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) – Comprehensive administrative schemes bar district-court review even of constitutional claims.
• Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) – Earlier precedent allowing district-court jurisdiction over facial challenges under the prior § 211(a); distinguished and effectively limited.
• Multiple circuit cases (Sugrue, Hicks, Veterans for Common Sense) confirming limits on district-court review of benefit decisions.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Sovereign Immunity & Proper Defendant

The court began with first principles: absent express waiver, Congress—as part of the sovereign—cannot be sued. Johnson conceded no waiver exists. Sovereign immunity being jurisdictional, the district court had none. Attempting to cure the problem by swapping defendants would be futile if the court also lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the statutory scheme.

b. Textual Analysis of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act

1. Section 511(a) – Directs the VA Secretary to decide “all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision … under a law that affects the provision of benefits.”
2. Section 7252 – Grants the CAVC exclusive jurisdiction to review Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions.
3. Section 7292 – Gives the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction to resolve constitutional and statutory questions decided by the CAVC.

Because a facial attack on § 5313 is plainly a “question of law … that affects the provision of benefits,” it must be raised through the VJRA pathway. The Eleventh Circuit found Congress’s intent to channel such challenges “fairly discernible” under Elgin.

c. Rejection of the Facial/As-Applied Jurisdictional Split

Earlier decisions in the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits had carved out a “facial challenge” exception. Relying on Elgin, the Eleventh Circuit called that distinction “hazy at best,” echoing the Supreme Court, and held that the statutory text contains no such carve-out. By replacing “administered by” with “affects” in § 511(a), Congress deliberately expanded the scope beyond specific benefit determinations to any question influencing benefits, including the constitutionality of governing statutes.

d. Constitutional-Avoidance Revisited

Unlike the pre-1988 scheme analyzed in Robison, the VJRA does not foreclose all judicial review. Because an Article III court (the Federal Circuit) stands ready to adjudicate constitutional claims, there is no need for constitutional-avoidance to preserve district-court jurisdiction. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit harmonized statutory text with constitutional requirements without resort to strained construction.

3. Impact of the Decision

• For Litigants: Veterans (and their counsel) must present all constitutional arguments—facial or as-applied—within the VA administrative process, then to the CAVC, and finally the Federal Circuit. Filing suit in district court will invite dismissal.
• Circuit Alignment & Potential Split: The Eleventh Circuit expressly disagreed with older precedents in the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits. Unless those circuits realign, a circuit split now exists, making Supreme Court review more likely.
• Administrative-Law Doctrine: Reinforces the trend of recognizing exhaustive administrative review schemes (e.g., CSRA, MSPB, Medicare) as exclusive even for constitutional claims.
• Government Immunity: Reaffirms that naming Congress (or any sovereign entity) as the defendant without waiver is jurisdictionally fatal.
• District-Court Practice: District judges must decide jurisdiction before merits and may not employ “hypothetical jurisdiction.” Magistrate reports assuming jurisdiction are error.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sovereign Immunity

Think of the federal government as a party that can only be sued if it voluntarily opens the courthouse door. Congress holds the key; unless it unlocks the door through a statute, the suit cannot proceed.

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge

• Facial: Claims a statute is unconstitutional in every possible application. Example: A law discriminating on race by its terms.
• As-Applied: Claims the statute is fine generally but unconstitutional in the plaintiff’s specific circumstances.

The Eleventh Circuit held both flavors travel the same VJRA road.

Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA) Pathway

1. Veteran applies for benefits; VA regional office decides.
2. Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
3. Petition the CAVC (an Article I court) for review.
4. Appeal to the Federal Circuit on legal questions, including constitutional issues.
5. Petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (discretionary).

“Exclusive Jurisdiction”

When a statute says a particular court has “exclusive jurisdiction,” all other courts are power-less to hear that category of cases—no matter how creative the pleading.

Conclusion

Johnson v. United States Congress crystallizes two doctrinal pillars: (1) sovereign immunity strictly limits who can be sued, and (2) Congress may, through precise statutory language, channel all judicial review—including constitutional review—into a specialized forum. The decision forecloses district-court jurisdiction over facial attacks on veterans’ benefits laws within the Eleventh Circuit and sets the stage for potential Supreme Court intervention to resolve an emerging circuit split. For veterans, advocates, and federal practitioners, the case is a clarion reminder to navigate the VJRA route from the outset and to respect the structural boundaries Congress has placed around judicial review. The “Johnson Rule” will likely echo beyond veterans’ law, reinforcing exclusive-review frameworks throughout the administrative state.