WALTERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Et Al. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIATION SURVIVORS Et Al.

Supreme Court

WALTERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Et Al. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIATION SURVIVORS Et Al.

468 U.S. 1323

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 9, 1984

DocketA-214

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 468 U.S. 1323 (WALTERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Et Al. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIATION SURVIVORS Et Al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

WALTERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Et Al. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIATION SURVIVORS Et Al., 468 U.S. 1323 (1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Applicants request that I stay an injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California prohibiting on constitutional grounds the enforcement of 38 U. S. C. §§3404 and 3405. These sections prohibit the payment of a fee of more than $10 by a veteran to an agent or attorney in connection with a claim for monetary benefits under laws administered by the Veterans Administration.

The statute which the single District Judge found unconstitutional has been on the books in some form for 122 years. Within the past decade, this Court has summarily affirmed a decision of a three-judge District Court upholding the constitutionality of 38 U. S. C. § 3404(c). Gendron v. Levi, 423 U. S. 802 (1975), aff’g Gendron v. Saxby, 389 F. Supp. 1303 (CD Cal.). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also recently upheld the validity of § 3404(c). Demarest v. United States, 718 F. 2d 964 (1983), cert. denied, 466 U. S. 950 (1984).

*1324 The application for a stay is granted. Respondents urge that the balance of hardships militates against the granting of a stay. It would take more than the respondents have presented in their response, however, to persuade me that the action of a single District Judge declaring unconstitutional an Act of Congress that has been on the books for more than 120 years should not be stayed pending consideration of the jurisdictional statement of applicants by this Court. The presumption of constitutionality which attaches to every Act of Congress is not merely a factor to be considered in evaluating success on the merits, but an equity to be considered in favor of applicants in balancing hardships. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 429 U. S. 1347 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).

The application for a stay is accordingly granted pending the timely filing of a jurisdictional statement and the disposition of the same by this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Applicants request that I stay an injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California prohibiting on constitutional grounds the enforcement of 38 U. S. C. §§3404 and 3405. These sections prohibit the payment of a fee of more than $10 by a veteran to an agent or attorney in connection with a claim for monetary benefits under laws administered by the Veterans Administration.

The statute which the single District Judge found unconstitutional has been on the books in some form for 122 years. Within the past decade, this Court has summarily affirmed a decision of a three-judge District Court upholding the constitutionality of 38 U. S. C. § 3404(c). Gendron v. Levi, 423 U. S. 802 (1975), aff’g Gendron v. Saxby, 389 F. Supp. 1303 (CD Cal.). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also recently upheld the validity of § 3404(c). Demarest v. United States, 718 F. 2d 964 (1983), cert. denied, 466 U. S. 950 (1984).

*1324 The application for a stay is granted. Respondents urge that the balance of hardships militates against the granting of a stay. It would take more than the respondents have presented in their response, however, to persuade me that the action of a single District Judge declaring unconstitutional an Act of Congress that has been on the books for more than 120 years should not be stayed pending consideration of the jurisdictional statement of applicants by this Court. The presumption of constitutionality which attaches to every Act of Congress is not merely a factor to be considered in evaluating success on the merits, but an equity to be considered in favor of applicants in balancing hardships. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 429 U. S. 1347 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).

The application for a stay is accordingly granted pending the timely filing of a jurisdictional statement and the disposition of the same by this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 U.S. 1323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-administrator-of-veterans-affairs-et-al-v-national-association-scotus-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack