Whether a state court can preclude a litigant from arguing federal law preemption on appeal due to failure to notify the state attorney general during trial proceedings, and whether a state court can issue a ruling on veterans' disability benefits contrary to VA decisions

I. The state of Tennessee requires a litigant to notify the state attorney general when a challenge to state law is made on grounds that it is unconstitutional or preempted by federal law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107 and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.04. Where a litigant has argued that a state court has no jurisdiction and authorit y to issue a decision that is contrary to that of a fe deral agency which is, by law, given exclusive jurisdiction over all claims for federal veterans’ disability benefits, and which has denied a claim for those benefits, can the state preclude the litigant from arguing that federal law preempts state law on appeal because the litigant failed to notify the state’s attorney general of this argument during the trial court proceedings, even though the appellate court provided notice to the Attorney General and gave it an opportunity to file a brief on the questions of federal law that had been raised in the trial court? II. 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) pr ovides the Veterans Administration (VA) with exclusive authority and jurisdiction to decide “all questions of law and fact” on a claim that a veteran’s disability benefits be apportioned by the VA to pay support payments in a state court divorce proceeding. The statute further deems all such decisions as “final and conclusive” and beyond review “by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.” ii Where the VA has denied such a claim, can a state trial court issue a ruling providing for a different disposition of these benefits in contravention of 38 U.S.C. § 511 and 38 U.S.C. § 5301?