Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

“subject to revision on the grounds of clear and unmistaka-
ble error.”  Full stop.  This Court should not be in the busi-
ness of adding words to the law, let alone to insulate badly
mistaken agency decisions from any chance of correction. 

III 
In  the  end,  it  is  hard  to  avoid  the  impression  that  the 
Court thinks an old agency ruling in Mr. George’s case just
isn’t  worth  revisiting.    See  ante,  at  10.  Maybe,  too,  that
might seem an understandable impulse on first encounter.
After all, in civil and criminal litigation new judicial inter-
pretations about a law’s meaning normally do not apply to
old cases after they have reached final judgment.  See, e.g., 
Harper  v.  Virginia  Dept.  of  Taxation,  509  U. S.  86,  94–97 
(1993).

But it turns out that impulse is doubly misguided here.
For  one  thing,  it  is  a  mistake  to  equate  veteran  benefits 
cases with ordinary civil and criminal litigation.  Recogniz-
ing the sacrifices of those who have left private life to serve
their  country,  Congress  has  ordained  that  a  veteran  may 
petition for review of clear and unmistakable errors in past 
administrative  decisions  “at  any  time.”    §§ 5109A(d), 
7111(d).  Congress’s  “whole  purpose”  in  setting  up  this
scheme was “to make an exception to [the usual rule of] fi-
nality” for our veterans in recognition of their service to the 
Nation.  Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524, 529 (2005).

For  another  thing,  this  case  doesn’t  just  affect  Mr.
George.  It  risks  insulating  countless  other  decisions  in 
which the Department has wrongly denied veteran benefits
based  on  self-serving  regulations  inconsistent  with  Con-
gress’s instructions.  See, e.g., Brief for National Veterans 
Legal Services Program et al. as Amici Curiae 15–27; Brief 
for Swords to Plowshares et al. as Amici Curiae 19–20.  Vet-
erans  already  face  challenges  enough  in  dealing  with  the 
Department.  On average, the agency takes seven years to