The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) provides the exclusive forum for veterans and other claimants, such as veterans' surviving spouses, to appeal U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions denying various veterans' benefits. This In Focus describes the CAVC's creation, jurisdiction, authority, and procedures before identifying several issues that may interest the 119th Congress.
Using its authority under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress established the CAVC (then called the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals) in 1988 through the Veterans' Judicial Review Act (Pub. L. No. 100-687). The Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105-368) gave the CAVC its current name. The statutes governing the CAVC are in chapter 72 of title 38 of the U.S. Code.
The CAVC has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), VA's top-level administrative tribunal. (Another CRS In Focus provides an overview of the BVA.) These decisions concern entitlement to various VA benefits, including disability compensation, pensions, education benefits, and survivor benefits. The CAVC also has the authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to issue writs—special court orders—in aid of its jurisdiction. Under this authority, the CAVC can compel VA to take any action (such as issuing a decision or providing a medical examination) "unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" if that action relates to a claim that could ultimately be appealed to the CAVC. In addition, the CAVC can award attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, for successfully challenging BVA decisions.
The CAVC may certify and hear class action cases based on the authority granted by the All Writs Act and the CAVC's power to establish its own rules and procedures. This class action authority extends to both appeals of final BVA decisions and matters arising under the All Writs Act. In the appeals context, however, the court lacks jurisdiction to include claimants without final, timely appealable BVA decisions as class members.
By statute, the CAVC consists of 10 judges, including a chief judge who serves on a rotating basis. Seven judgeships are permanently authorized; three additional seats are authorized under temporary expansions that will expire in 2028. Judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a fixed term of 15 years, though judges may be reappointed. As of September 16, 2026, there are seven active judges (five of whom are veterans), three vacancies, and four pending nominees (including one for a vacancy that will arise in June 2027).
Under 38 U.S.C. § 7253(f), the President can remove a judge before the expiration of the judge's term only for misconduct, neglect of duty, engaging in the practice of law, or residing more than 50 miles outside the Washington, DC, area. There is some question whether these statutory removal protections are constitutional: in Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held that statutory removal protections for Federal Trade Commission commissioners were unconstitutional but left open the question of whether protections for non-Article III courts, like the CAVC, are permissible.
In addition to its active judges, the CAVC uses retired judges in recall status to hear cases. The chief judge may recall a retired judge for service when necessary to meet the CAVC's needs. As of the time of publication, there are 10 recall-eligible retired judges, three of whom are serving in recall status.
Proceedings before the CAVC are adversarial. Appellants and petitioners may represent themselves or be represented. Both attorneys and nonattorneys who meet certain requirements may be admitted to practice before the CAVC. The appellee or respondent in all cases is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who is represented by attorneys from the VA Office of General Counsel.
The CAVC generally sits in Washington, DC, but has authority to sit anywhere in the United States. Several times per year, the CAVC holds oral arguments at law schools and federal courthouses throughout the country.
Only individuals adversely affected by a BVA decision may file an appeal to the CAVC—the government may not do so. The CAVC reviews the BVA's legal conclusions de novo (without deference to the BVA's determinations) but reviews the BVA's findings of fact for clear error.
According to the CAVC's annual report for FY2025, more than 80% of appeals were resolved through a mediation process run by the CAVC's central legal staff without being assigned to a judge. In such cases, the parties agree to end the appeal or remand the case to VA for further proceedings.
If an appeal is assigned to a judge, the judge may decide the case on the briefs or refer the case to a panel of three active judges for a precedential decision, with or without oral argument. Once a single judge or panel writes a decision, it is circulated to all other active judges for review. At this point, a single-judge decision may be sent to a three-judge panel if two judges vote to do so, or a single-judge or panel decision may be reheard en banc (i.e., by all active judges) if a majority of the court votes to do so. After the CAVC issues a decision, a party can move for reconsideration, panel review, or en banc review.
Individuals who have claims pending before VA and assert that the agency has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed an action (such as failing to issue a timely decision or help a claimant obtain evidence) may petition the CAVC for an extraordinary writ compelling VA to act. Petitions do not go through the CAVC's mediation process and are instead assigned directly to an active judge. Once assigned to a judge, a petition follows the same process as an appeal but is generally given priority.
An appellant may receive a payment from the government for reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses if the appellant (1) is a prevailing party, (2) can show that VA's position was not "substantially justified," and (3) meets certain other requirements. (A separate CRS product provides more information on EAJA fees.) Many attorneys appearing before the CAVC do so without charge to their clients, sometimes in exchange for an agreement that the attorney will receive any EAJA fees awarded.
The CAVC requires all represented parties to file case materials electronically through the court's case management and electronic case files (CM/ECF) system. Unrepresented parties may submit materials through CM/ECF, by email, or by mail. The CAVC does not charge the public to access materials on its docket.
Since April 2019, the CAVC has livestreamed its oral arguments on YouTube. Links to videos and audio files of past arguments are available on the CAVC's website.
The CAVC resolves cases through decisions issued by the clerk of the court, an individual judge, or a panel of judges. When the parties file a joint motion to remand a case or end an appeal, the clerk may issue an order granting the motion and resolving the case. The clerk may also grant unopposed motions for EAJA fees. According to the CAVC's annual report, more than 87% of the CAVC's cases were resolved by clerk's orders in FY2025.
CAVC judges have statutory authority to issue single-judge decisions. These decisions take two forms: orders that resolve petitions and motions to dismiss an appeal; and memorandum decisions that decide appeals on the merits. Single-judge orders and decisions are not precedential (i.e., not binding in future CAVC or VA cases) and accounted for roughly 12% of the CAVC's decisions.
Cases that present a new issue of law or require the CAVC to modify an existing rule are generally decided by a panel decision issued by three judges. Cases of exceptional importance or that require the CAVC to overturn a previous decision are decided by the en banc court. Panel and en banc decisions are generally precedential and bind both the CAVC and VA in all future cases. According to the CAVC's annual report, less than 1% of the CAVC's cases led to panel or en banc decisions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has exclusive jurisdiction to review CAVC decisions. Any party, including the government, may appeal a CAVC decision to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit's review is generally limited to legal questions, and it cannot review the CAVC's factual findings or application of a law to the facts of a particular case unless the case presents a constitutional issue.
According to its annual report, in FY2025, the CAVC received 10,449 appeals—an approximately 17% increase from FY2024—along with 255 petitions and 7,079 EAJA applications. This increase was likely due to a larger number of decisions issued by the BVA (the BVA issued 123,962 in FY2025, up from 116,192 in FY2024).
During FY2025, the CAVC issued 16,236 decisions addressing 8,758 appeals, 249 petitions, and 6,997 EAJA applications. The court affirmed the BVA's decision in around 4% of appeals, reversed or remanded in 42% of appeals, and dismissed 12% of appeals. The remaining 42% of appeals led to mixed outcomes. The CAVC issued one en banc decision and 31 panel decisions in FY2025.
The House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees have authorizing jurisdiction over the CAVC, while the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have appropriations jurisdiction.
Congress may wish to address the scope of the CAVC's class action authority, such as by setting specific procedures or expressly allowing or prohibiting class actions arising out of certain types of cases (e.g., petitions or appeals). Several measures introduced in the 119th Congress would, for example, allow the CAVC to include as class members claimants without final BVA decisions.
The CAVC's temporary authorization for 10 judges expires in 2028. Although the expiration will not affect any judges appointed before that date, it will prevent the appointment of more than seven judges when new vacancies arise. If Congress wishes to address this issue, it could consider extending the authorization, making it permanent, or authorizing more than 10 judges.