Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Swords to Plowshares, No. 24-104 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2024)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 24-104
Decided
February 5, 2024
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.

O R D E R

Petitioners, Swords to Plowshares and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, seek a writ of mandamus directing the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) to take final agency action in its ongoing rulemaking proceedings to update and clarify existing regulations regarding 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 to2 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); Telecomms. 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 “reserved 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 completed. Accordingly,

3IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

February 5, 2024 Date

Footnotes

  1. * 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 sessions, drafted multiple versions of the rule, conducted inter-agency meetings, received and evaluated feedback, and recommended its course of action to the Secretary.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Swords to Plowshares, No. 24-104 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-24-104-20240205
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-104-20240205

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.