Why It Matters

The structure, authority, staffing, and workload of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) is the focus of a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The CAVC is the exclusive forum for veterans and other claimants, including surviving spouses, to appeal U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs decisions denying veterans’ benefits. Congress created the court, originally called the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, in 1988 through the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act.

The Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 gave the institution its current name.

That deadline makes the court’s authorization, judicial appointments, and case-processing tools relevant to both congressional oversight and the Trump administration’s veterans policy.

The Big Picture

The court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, the body whose decisions are reviewed in those cases. The CAVC may issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act in aid of its jurisdiction. It may also award attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act when a claimant successfully challenges a Board decision.

The court may certify and hear class actions under authority from the All Writs Act and its power to establish court rules and procedures, but it lacks jurisdiction in the appeals context to include claimants who do not have final, timely appealable Board decisions.

Several measures introduced in the 119th Congress would allow the CAVC to include claimants without final Board decisions as class members, putting that jurisdictional boundary before lawmakers.

The Bottom Line

As of Sept. 16, seven judges were active, three seats were vacant, and four nominees were pending.

The President may remove a judge before the end of the term only for misconduct, neglect of duty, practicing law, or residing more than 50 miles outside the Washington, D.C., area, but the constitutionality of those protections is uncertain after the Supreme Court held in Trump v.

The court also uses retired judges in recall status; as of the report’s publication, 10 were eligible for recall and three were serving in that status.

Operationally, in fiscal year 2025, more than 80% of appeals were resolved through mediation by central legal staff without assignment to a judge, and more than 87% of cases were resolved by clerk's orders; that same year, the court received 10,449 appeals, 255 petitions, and 7,079 Equal Access to Justice Act applications.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article