Carmen J. Cardona v. Eric K. Shinseki
2014 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 358
Vet. App.2014Background
- Appellant (veteran) appealed a Board denial of additional spousal VA compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1115 because VA statute 38 U.S.C. § 101(31) defined "spouse" as an opposite-sex person.
- Appellant challenged § 101(31) and DOMA § 3 as unconstitutional; Secretary initially agreed they were unconstitutional but continued enforcement pending resolution.
- After U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor and a district court finding § 101(31) unconstitutional, the President directed executive agencies to stop enforcing the title 38 provision.
- Secretary began processing and then paid full spousal benefits (including past due amounts) to appellant; Secretary moved to dismiss as moot.
- Appellant opposed dismissal invoking the voluntary cessation exception and public‑interest reasons for resolving the constitutional question.
- Court concluded Secretary’s cessation was genuine and not reasonably likely to recur, found the case moot, set aside the Board decision, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether payment of the requested benefits and the Secretary’s policy change moot the appeal | Cited voluntary cessation: Secretary bears heavy burden to show wrongful conduct cannot reasonably recur; future administrations could reinstate enforcement, so case should proceed | Payment of benefits and formal Executive directive ending enforcement remove any live controversy; courts presume government acts in good faith when it changes policy | Moot: payment + binding Presidential directive + consistent Executive position show genuine cessation; recurrence not reasonably expected; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the voluntary cessation exception prevents dismissal because of public interest in resolving constitutionality | Public interest favors judicial resolution; two district courts reached merits; leaving issue unresolved frustrates uniformity in veterans law | Public interest alone cannot overcome mootness; speculation about possible future enforcement insufficient; Friends of the Earth standard controls | Voluntary cessation exception not met: mere possibility of future reversion and public interest do not defeat mootness absent evidence recurrence is reasonably likely |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (Supreme Court held DOMA § 3 unconstitutional under Fifth Amendment)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (articulates heavy burden to show voluntary cessation moots case)
- City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278 (2001) (mere speculation of reentry insufficient to avoid mootness)
- City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (manipulation of jurisdiction and ongoing injury bear on mootness)
- Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (government can meet burden by showing changed conditions unlikely to recur)
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (repeal that can be reenacted demonstrates risk of recurrence)
- Padgett v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 159 (2008) (receipt of full benefits generally moots veterans appeal)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur and dismissal practice when cases become moot)