This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
The case turns on whether the CUE doctrine covers a later change in law or a change in the interpretation of law.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Kevin George)
According to Petitioner (Melanie L. Bostwick), according to Petitioner (Melanie L. Bostwick), petitioner argues that the veterans benefits system is uniquely pro‑claimant and that CUE is a special protection preventing agency errors from depriving veterans of benefits.
According to Petitioner (MS. BOSTWICK), according to Petitioner (MS. BOSTWICK), petitioner contends that supplemental claims are available only for new and material evidence, not for cumulative evidence or alleged legal error.
According to Petitioner (MR. YANG), according to Petitioner (MR. YANG), petitioner asserts that a clear misinterpretation of the statute could constitute clear and unmistakable error.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether the issue was “just like an unfortunate part of that…”.
Justice Breyer questioned the soundness of a prior statement, asking “Was it that? No.”
Justice Kagan followed up, asking what effect a regulation had.
Justice Alito asked why the issue was not simply about the interpretation of error.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the statute concerned adjudicator error or error in the decision.
According to Justice THOMAS, justice Thomas questioned whether Congress had codified the petitioner’s understanding of CUE.
Justice Gorsuch asked how to treat an amicus brief that discusses judicial interpretations as changes in law.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether a prior regulation, later declared invalid, would trigger retroactive benefits.
Justice Kavanaugh also asked whether the Secretary’s review is a real thing.
- [1] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 13
- [2] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 25
- [3] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 27
- [4] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 28
- [5] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 35
- [6] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 47
- [7] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 50
- [8] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 74
- [9] f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdf, p. 79
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Justice Gorsuch warned that a narrow reading of CUE could shield the Department of Veterans Affairs from accountability for clear errors, affecting countless veterans.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 864ed7e153a99f63d78b-r1-f82ca55ec7e1045c.pdfopinion
- f03f468eeaae62264b68-r1-95ee156d9f71f1f4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.