Justices rule against vet in 1st ruling from bench since virus

The Supreme Court, which had not announced a decision from the bench since the start of the coronavirus pandemic almost three years ago, returned to the courtroom Monday to issue a unanimous decision in a case on veterans' benefits.

The decision, the first in an argued case in the term that started in October, was announced by its author, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It was the first time she had summarized an opinion from the bench.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted a second development: The court “dismissed as improvidently granted” a case on the scope of the attorney-client privilege.

If the developments were minor, they nonetheless marked a return to normalcy, reviving a courtroom ceremony that has been part of tradition for centuries.

Only three other members of the court attended the session Monday: Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The case on veterans' benefits, Arellano v. McDonough, No. 21-432, concerned Adolfo R. Arellano, who served in the Navy from 1977 to 1981. About 30 years later, he applied for benefits stemming from what he said was trauma he had suffered while serving on an aircraft carrier that collided with another ship.

The Department of Veterans Affairs granted his request for benefits, but only prospectively. Arellano, who said he had been too ill to understand that he had been entitled to apply for benefits earlier, asked for them covering the intervening decades.

Barrett wrote that the federal law governing the matter allows a retroactive award of benefits, but only up to a year and only if the application is filed within a year of the veteran's discharge.

The case the court dismissed, In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, was the subject of arguments this month. The question was whether a law firm has to turn over documents to a grand jury that contained both legal advice and ordinary tax-return accounting.

A federal appeals court ruled that the documents had to be disclosed unless the legal advice was their “primary purpose.” The firm refused, saying that the documents should be protected so long as legal advice was a “substantial purpose” of the communication.

The justices concluded that the case was not a suitable vehicle for resolving the question, leaving the appeals court's ruling in place.