Bufkin v. Collins
145 S. Ct. 728 (2025), decided March 5, 2025. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 23-713, Justice Thomas, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Jackson dissenting, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Affirming Bufkin v. McDonough, 75 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The only Supreme Court decision on this list, and the one that sets the ceiling on how far a benefit-of-the-doubt argument can travel.
The question
38 U.S.C. §7261(b)(1) tells the Veterans Court that, in reviewing a Board decision, it "shall ... take due account of the Secretary's application of [the benefit-of-the-doubt rule]." Congress added that phrase in 2002. What does it require?
Two veterans argued it requires the Veterans Court to review the whole record itself and decide for itself whether the evidence is in approximate balance — a fresh look rather than a deferential one.
What the Court held
No. "Take due account" imports the standards already in §7261(a): legal questions reviewed de novo, factual questions reviewed for clear error. The phrase is not a freestanding task; the statute says it applies "[i]n making the determinations under subsection (a)."
"The Veterans Court must review the VA's application of the rule the same way it would any other determination—by reviewing legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error."
And then the part that decides most cases: the approximate-balance determination is predominantly factual, so it gets clear-error review.
The Court walked through it in two steps. First VA weighs each item of evidence, which is plainly factfinding. Second, VA decides whether the evidence is in approximate balance — which has a legal component, since "approximate balance" is a legal standard, but is mostly the marshaling and weighing of evidence. For a mixed question, the standard of review turns on whether answering it is primarily legal or primarily factual work. Here it is factual.
The Court distinguished probable cause, which veterans had offered as the analogy: probable cause is a constitutional standard, which creates a strong presumption of de novo review, and it requires substantially more legal work than this does.
What this means in practice
The benefit-of-the-doubt rule itself is untouched. Lynch still says approximate balance means "nearly equal," and VA still owes you the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is that close.
What changed is the leverage on appeal. Arguing to the Veterans Court that the Board should have found the evidence in approximate balance is now an uphill argument against a clear-error standard — the court will not simply reweigh the record. Legal error in how VA applied the rule is still reviewed de novo, and that is where a real argument lives: the Board applied the wrong standard, or did not address the rule at all, or gave reasons that do not support the finding.
The practical consequence runs backward into the claim. The place to win on close evidence is at the Board and before it — by making the record strong enough that the finding goes your way — not by hoping a reviewing court will re-weigh it later. That is the argument for building the evidence deliberately rather than filing and appealing.
The dissent
Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, read "take due account" as Congress asking for something more than the review the court was already obliged to give, and would have treated the approximate-balance question as carrying a substantial legal component warranting de novo review. The majority's answer was that if Congress had meant to set a new standard it would have named one, as it did in §7261(a) — and that the petitioners had not offered a reading that avoids redundancy either.
What it does not hold
It does not weaken §5107(b) and it does not say VA may skip the rule. It decides who checks VA's work and how closely, not what VA is required to do in the first place.
Finding the opinion
The Supreme Court's slip opinion: 23-713_jifl.pdf. Published at 145 S. Ct. 728.
Educational summary. The decision addressed the facts and issues identified above; its outcome does not predict another claim. Check its precedential status and subsequent history before relying on it.
Reviewed October 6, 2026