[00:00:00] Speaker 01: A final case for argument today is 24-2248 Wells v. Collins. [00:00:05] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:09] Speaker 01: Mr. Levinson, please proceed whenever you're ready. [00:00:11] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:14] Speaker 04: Well, we come here with a case today that falls into what I would describe as one of the more unusual categories I have ever seen. [00:00:22] Speaker 04: And just to put it in perspective, the nature of how unusual it is, this is the only time as counsel that I have ever gotten a phone call from a VA decision maker distraught over the outcome of the case. [00:00:39] Speaker 04: The decision-maker told me that they were not happy with the outcome, and they were hoping that somebody higher up in the system, perhaps this court, could ameliorate the harsh effects of the way in which this law has impacted Ms. [00:00:55] Speaker 04: Rawls. [00:00:56] Speaker 04: Ms. [00:00:56] Speaker 04: Rawls is an impoverished woman. [00:00:59] Speaker 04: She had serious physical disabilities. [00:01:02] Speaker 04: She devoted many years of her life to the care of the one man she loved, Gary Rawls. [00:01:08] Speaker 04: There is no allegation of wrongdoing here. [00:01:12] Speaker 02: But the board applied the law, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims applied the law, and we have to do the same. [00:01:22] Speaker 02: And there's a one-year requirement here, which wasn't met, irrespective of the reasons. [00:01:30] Speaker 04: I don't think that if we're looking at the intent of Congress, Congress intended to lead us to this absurd result on this rule. [00:01:40] Speaker 04: This is clearly an anti-fraud measure. [00:01:43] Speaker 04: It is designed to prevent fraud. [00:01:46] Speaker 04: The problem in this case is everyone knows there is no fraud. [00:01:50] Speaker 04: So what is the purpose of applying a fraud statute to a non-fraudulent, innocent actor who has suffered, as Ms. [00:01:58] Speaker 04: Ross has suffered in this case? [00:02:00] Speaker 04: It makes no logical sense. [00:02:03] Speaker 04: This court, like all courts, has inherent power in the worst of situations to look at the absurdity of the outcome and then reiterate it through some logical outcome. [00:02:16] Speaker 04: This is the most irrational decision I have ever seen. [00:02:20] Speaker 04: It cries out for some kind of justice. [00:02:25] Speaker 04: It makes no sense to punish a good-faith, innocent actor under a statute designed to protect against fraud. [00:02:35] Speaker 04: The government, in this case, leans on Lofton. [00:02:39] Speaker 04: and talks about the bar and how it was applied in Lofton. [00:02:43] Speaker 04: Mrs. Lofton murdered her husband. [00:02:46] Speaker 04: That's why the court in Lofton applied the bar with such enthusiasm. [00:02:53] Speaker 04: That's not the right word, but that's pretty much what it was. [00:02:56] Speaker 04: They made it clear that there was no way that someone like Ms. [00:02:59] Speaker 04: Lofton could correct. [00:03:01] Speaker 04: She was convicted of manslaughter. [00:03:03] Speaker 04: She killed her own husband and got 10 years in prison and then applied for VA benefits. [00:03:08] Speaker 02: So how would you have us write a decision in favor of your client? [00:03:13] Speaker 02: Should we interpret it, married less than one year, unless that was due, as long as that was not due, to avoid commission of fraud? [00:03:25] Speaker 04: I think the problem here, Your Honor, is that we have an anti-fraud statute. [00:03:32] Speaker 04: that was clearly intended to prevent fraud applied to someone who everyone in this case knows committed no fraud. [00:03:41] Speaker 04: The application of this statute to my client extends its reach to innocent people and causes them to suffer horrific consequences. [00:03:52] Speaker 01: Council, I think we're just always trying to get at, I mean this is a case in which we don't have [00:03:58] Speaker 01: the authority to review the application of law to fact. [00:04:02] Speaker 01: That's outside the scope of our jurisdiction. [00:04:04] Speaker 01: And so I think that you need to focus on your constitutional argument. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: Because the argument you're making is you're trying to appeal to us to do something that we just don't have the jurisdiction to do. [00:04:16] Speaker 01: So the only way we'd have the jurisdiction is if you prove the whole statute's unconstitutional. [00:04:21] Speaker 01: And I think that's the argument you made in your brief. [00:04:24] Speaker 04: Do you understand? [00:04:25] Speaker 04: I fully address what you're saying. [00:04:27] Speaker 04: And yes, you're absolutely right. [00:04:28] Speaker 04: There is a constitutional foundation for the argument that I'm making. [00:04:33] Speaker 04: And the fact of the matter is that Ms. [00:04:36] Speaker 04: Morse is suffering greatly in this case because of the fact that she is not in the category of people the statute would be. [00:04:48] Speaker 01: But her suffering. [00:04:50] Speaker 01: What is the constitutional argument? [00:04:52] Speaker 01: Maybe you could tell me, like, which part of the Constitution? [00:04:54] Speaker 01: Like, just try to focus on the Constitution. [00:04:56] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:04:57] Speaker 04: Well, we have case law on the subject. [00:04:59] Speaker 04: The problem here is that, in terms of the constitutional deprivation, why is she being singled out for a one-year probation? [00:05:09] Speaker 04: Why is one year so sacrosanct? [00:05:11] Speaker 04: Why is it could not be a shorter period if the marriage was a valid, honest marriage? [00:05:17] Speaker 03: Are you saying that that one more provision is applied differently to people? [00:05:23] Speaker 03: The church of your kind was treated differently from anybody else? [00:05:28] Speaker 04: I think, Your Honor, the problem here is that [00:05:34] Speaker 04: She was treated unfairly because she's not in the category of people the statute was intended to reach. [00:05:42] Speaker 04: It's an overbroad reading of the statute. [00:05:45] Speaker 04: And in addition, she's been deprived of a fundamental right, which this court found [00:05:53] Speaker 04: The right to veterans' benefits and the right to due process for veterans' benefits is protected by the Fifth Amendment. [00:05:59] Speaker 04: There is no reason to deprive her of those benefits. [00:06:03] Speaker 04: There is no logic to this reason. [00:06:04] Speaker 04: There isn't even a rational basis in this case. [00:06:08] Speaker 04: And the statute itself, with a one-year provision, provides a sweeping prohibition that has nothing really to do with whether a marriage is fraudulent or not. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: Because the truth doesn't matter if you've been married for two years or two months or whatever it is. [00:06:24] Speaker 04: It could be valid or invalid. [00:06:26] Speaker 04: It all depends on the circumstances. [00:06:28] Speaker 04: The worst of time isn't at all. [00:06:31] Speaker 04: before the statute was passed, that the courts were able to look at these cases on a case-by-case basis and look at the facts without any interference from a stated statutory period. [00:06:47] Speaker 04: There's no reason to have this statutory period. [00:06:50] Speaker 04: It does nothing to ensure [00:06:52] Speaker 01: But you know we're not Congress, right? [00:06:55] Speaker 01: Like, we don't get to make law. [00:06:58] Speaker 04: But you do get to determine whether or not the Equal Protection Clause is violated between someone who's been married for one year or one month and the circumstances under which that occurred, including the gross poverty in which these folks live. [00:07:12] Speaker 01: Okay, so if you're now citing the Equal Protection Clause, that's fine. [00:07:17] Speaker 01: Do you agree that we analyze for whether there was a rational basis for the restriction, that that's the standard of review we use for this constitutional issue? [00:07:26] Speaker 04: The problem is, the problem here is that when you're applying the Equal Protection Clause is violated because there's no rational basis for applying this law or having this law apply to someone in the category of Ms. [00:07:40] Speaker 04: Rawls. [00:07:41] Speaker 04: It makes no sense whatsoever. [00:07:44] Speaker 04: It is the most irrational decision I have ever seen. [00:07:47] Speaker 04: And it makes no sense to punish this poor woman. [00:07:51] Speaker 04: Why is the government so determined to carry out this action against Ms. [00:07:56] Speaker 04: Rawls? [00:07:57] Speaker 04: There is no logical reason that she should suffer any further under the circumstances here. [00:08:04] Speaker 04: This is a violation of her people protection rights, and it doesn't rise to the level, in my opinion, of cruel and unusual punishment. [00:08:12] Speaker 04: I grant you it's not a criminal case, but you are literally condemning this woman to death. [00:08:19] Speaker 04: She is starving, she's down to 102 pounds, and if that's not cruel and unusual punishment against an individual who has done nothing wrong by all admission, and even the decision maker was upset and wanted somebody to save the day. [00:08:34] Speaker 04: If that's not cruel and unusual, I don't know what it is. [00:08:37] Speaker 04: It makes no sense whatsoever. [00:08:40] Speaker 01: Do you want to save the rest of your time for rebuttal? [00:08:47] Speaker 01: I can do that. [00:08:47] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:08:48] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:08:56] Speaker 00: This may please the Court. [00:09:00] Speaker 00: I think I'll be brief. [00:09:02] Speaker 00: As Your Honors have pointed out, the statute here need only survive rational basis scrutiny because it is not a classification that divides based on any specified class, whether race, sex, or national origin. [00:09:16] Speaker 00: And regardless of what that rational basis may be, it's clear that there are. [00:09:20] Speaker 00: There's at least one which is anti-fraud. [00:09:23] Speaker 00: protections, and the statute clearly survives that. [00:09:26] Speaker 00: Nor does it invidiously discriminate against recipients of DIC benefits by imposing this one-year marriage requirement. [00:09:33] Speaker 00: And so the federal court's decision should be affirmed for that reason. [00:09:37] Speaker 02: And presumably, poverty and illness are not a protected class? [00:09:43] Speaker 00: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:09:44] Speaker 02: They are not. [00:09:46] Speaker 00: They are not. [00:09:47] Speaker 00: And that's not in any way to undermine the difficult circumstances that Mrs. Rells [00:09:52] Speaker 00: faced and continues to face, but the quarry is constrained to both look at the plain language of the statute and to defer to Congress for a rational basis is the standard must follow. [00:10:05] Speaker 01: And I assume that it is the government's position that we don't have jurisdiction to do anything more in terms of how the law is applied to the facts here. [00:10:14] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor. [00:10:15] Speaker 00: It's similar. [00:10:18] Speaker 00: The analysis tracks the rational basis review, and there's nothing more for this court to do in this case. [00:10:25] Speaker 01: Thank you, counsel. [00:10:26] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:10:27] Speaker 01: Mr. Levinson. [00:10:33] Speaker 04: Your Honor, Ms. [00:10:36] Speaker 04: Rales is an individual who Ms. [00:10:38] Speaker 04: Rales never intended to touch. [00:10:40] Speaker 04: There is no rational basis. [00:10:43] Speaker 04: Congress probably gave very little thought to what it was doing in the first place. [00:10:47] Speaker 04: It was to work on Capitol Hill. [00:10:48] Speaker 04: I know how they vote. [00:10:50] Speaker 04: They run to the floor and ask their buddy to tell them how to vote, because they don't even know what they're voting on most of the time. [00:10:57] Speaker 04: More importantly, Ms. [00:10:58] Speaker 04: Ralls is being deprived of an important benefit protected by the Fifth Amendment. [00:11:04] Speaker 04: And it seems to me [00:11:05] Speaker 04: that the reason for deprivation provides no rational explanation for the outcome in this case. [00:11:12] Speaker 04: The statute itself really does not necessarily have a rational basis. [00:11:17] Speaker 04: While it's designed to prevent fraud, it does so in a way that creates an arbitrary period that has nothing to do with whether or not you have a valid marriage or not. [00:11:29] Speaker 04: Whether you're married for a week, a year, two years, has nothing to do with validity. [00:11:35] Speaker 04: And it has nothing to do with preventing fraud. [00:11:37] Speaker 04: It is an arbitrary determination. [00:11:39] Speaker 04: We have a rare case. [00:11:41] Speaker 04: We have an absurd, cruel outcome that infringes on the constitutional right of my client. [00:11:47] Speaker 04: And this court has the power to ameliorate that result by granting her these benefits, which she has done nothing, nothing, not to deserve. [00:11:58] Speaker 04: And that is even review of the decision-maker at the VA. [00:12:02] Speaker 04: This is a terrible situation and the only remedy lies with this court recognizing the fundamental constitutional rights of my client and the horrific effect this has had on her life. [00:12:14] Speaker 04: I thank you very much for your time and attention. [00:12:16] Speaker 04: If there are no further questions. [00:12:18] Speaker 01: Thank you very much.