Whether the Veterans' Judicial Review Act precludes federal district courts from hearing constitutional challenges to federal statutes governing veterans' benefits

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO: Justice Clarence Thomas, Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Pursuant to Rules 13.5 and 30.2 of the Rules of this Court, Applicant Floyd D. Johnson respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time, to and including December 17, 2025, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. JUDGMENT FROM WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT Applicant anticipates seeking review of the attached judgment and opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Johnson v. United States Congress, 151 F .4th 1287 (11th Cir. 2025) (No. 2310682). App. 1-17. The court entered judgment on August 19, 2025. App. 1. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction to review the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment and opinion under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Unless extended, the deadline for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari expires on November 17, 2025. This application is being filed more than 10 days before the expiration date. Applicant has not requested any prior extensions of the deadline. BACKGROUND 1. Applicant Floyd D. Johnson, a United States Army veteran, applied for service-connected disability benefits after a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. App. 2-3. The Veterans Administration (VA) determined that Mr. Johnson’s disability should be rated at 80 percent. Jd. at 3. But because Mr. Johnson is serving a lengthy prison sentence after conviction for several state felonies, the VA reduced Mr. Johnson’s monthly benefits to a 10 percent rate pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5313(a)(1)(A). Jd. 2. Mr. Johnson filed a pro se complaint against the United States Congress, alleging that Section 5313 violated both the Bill of Attainder Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, jd. amend. V. App. 3. A magistrate judge, screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, recommended dismissing the complaint on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), App. 3, and the district judge adopted the recommendation. Jd. at 4. 3. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit granted Mr. Johnson’s motion for the appointment of counsel, reasoning that Mr. Johnson’s appeal “present[ed] a novel issue” and that he had a “nonfrivolous argument that his claim was wrongly dismissed.” Order at 3, ECF 18-2. The undersigned counsel was then appointed by the court to represent Mr. Johnson. Order at 2, ECF 20-2. Ultimately, however, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. App. 17. The panel first held that Mr. Johnson could not sue Congress because Congress had not waived sovereign immunity for challenges to Section 5313. App. 7. Usually, that defect would not be fatal: A plaintiff who names the wrong federal government defendant can amend the complaint to name a proper defendant—in this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. But the Eleventh Circuit held that any amendment would be futile here because in the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA), “Congress has vested exclusive jurisdiction to review challenges to the constitutionality of veterans’ benefits laws in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,” thereby depriving federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear such challenges. Jd.; see 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). REASONS FOR GRANTING THE EXTENSION 1. This case is a serious candidate for review by this Court. The Eleventh Circuit panel acknowledged that “some of [its] sister circuits” had reached the opposite conclusion and had permitted district courts to hear constitutional challenges to federal statutes governing veterans’ benefits. App. 11-12. There is indeed an entrenched and longstanding split among the circuits on this issue. Compare, e.g., Disabled Am. Veterans v. U.S. D