Court Opinion

ID: 9946244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:03:17.808499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.158280
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-104    Document: 15     Page: 1    Filed: 02/05/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

   In Re SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES, NATIONAL
     VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM,
                   Petitioners
             ______________________

                         2024-104
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
                 ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

    Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
    Petitioners, Swords to Plowshares and the National
Veterans Legal Services Program, seek a writ of manda-
mus directing the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”)
to take final agency action in its ongoing rulemaking pro-
ceedings to update and clarify existing regulations regard-
ing eligibility for benefits based on character of discharge.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs opposes.
    Because the Secretary’s alleged failure to timely issue
a final rule interferes with our jurisdiction to review the
rule pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 502, we have authority to
Case: 24-104    Document: 15      Page: 2    Filed: 02/05/2024

2                               IN RE: SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES

review petitioners’ allegations of unreasonable delay under
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(1);
In re A Cmty. Voice, 878 F.3d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 2017); Tel-
ecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 75 (D.C.
Cir. 1984); In re Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 392 F. App’x
858, 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, mandamus is “re-
served for extraordinary situations,” Gulfstream Aerospace
Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988),
where, inter alia, the right to issuance of the writ is clear
and indisputable and issuance of the writ is appropriate
under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).
     We are certainly troubled by the amount of time it has
taken the DVA to conduct these rulemaking proceedings. *
Nevertheless, the DVA has now submitted final amended
rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
for review, and the Secretary represents to this court in his
response that 150 days would be sufficient to finalize the
rulemaking process. See Resp. at 24. We conclude that it
is proper under these circumstances to deny the petition
without prejudice to petitioners again seeking mandamus
relief if the DVA should fail to take final action by April 15,
2024, by which time we fully expect final action to be com-
pleted.
    Accordingly,

    *   The DVA initiated these rulemaking proceedings
in 2016. It published a proposed rule in 2020. Based on
more than 70 comments received, the DVA issued a request
for information in 2021. And since that time, the DVA
states that it has gathered information, held listening ses-
sions, drafted multiple versions of the rule, conducted in-
ter-agency meetings, received and evaluated feedback, and
recommended its course of action to the Secretary.
Case: 24-104    Document: 15   Page: 3   Filed: 02/05/2024

IN RE: SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES                            3

    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                          FOR THE COURT

 February 5, 2024
      Date