## Facts

- Federal law limited to $10 the fee that an attorney or agent could be paid for representing a claimant in Veterans’ Administration (VA) benefits proceedings involving service-connected death or disability claims.
- Plaintiffs included a veterans’ association, other veterans’ organizations, individual veterans, and a veteran’s widow who alleged the fee cap effectively prevented them from obtaining counsel in benefits adjudications.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court asserting that the fee limitation violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the First Amendment (consultation with counsel, association, and petitioning interests).
- The district court concluded the fee cap denied claimants a realistic opportunity to secure legal representation and entered a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the fee limitation.
- Federal officials responsible for administering veterans’ benefits appealed directly to the Supreme Court under a statute permitting direct review when a federal court order effectively impairs enforcement of an Act of Congress on constitutional grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review a nationwide preliminary injunction that, on constitutional grounds, barred enforcement of a federal statute limiting attorney fees in VA benefits proceedings.
2. Whether the $10 fee limitation violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by denying claimants a meaningful opportunity to obtain representation in VA benefits proceedings.
3. Whether the fee limitation violated the First Amendment rights of claimants and veterans’ organizations to consult counsel, associate, and petition the government.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction because the nationwide injunction, though styled as preliminary, effectively suspended enforcement of a federal statute on constitutional grounds.
- The Court reversed the district court and upheld the $10 fee limitation as constitutional.
- The Court concluded the fee cap did not violate due process in the context of the VA’s informal, nonadversarial benefits scheme and the assistance available through the agency and veterans’ organizations.
- The Court rejected the First Amendment challenge, reasoning that the law regulated fees within a benefits program and did not bar communication, association, or representation as such.

## Legal Principles

- A nationwide injunction that disables operation of a federal statute on constitutional grounds can be directly reviewable even if issued as interlocutory relief.
- Due process review of administrative benefit procedures is context-dependent and accounts for Congress’s design choices, including the intended informality and nonadversarial character of the scheme.
- To invalidate procedural features of a benefits system on due process grounds based on asserted need for paid counsel, challengers must make an exceptionally strong showing that existing procedures create a high probability of erroneous deprivation and that attorney participation would materially reduce that risk.
- A statutory cap on fees for representation in a government benefits program generally regulates compensation rather than prohibiting speech, association, or petitioning, and incidental effects on those interests may be justified by legitimate governmental objectives in structuring the program.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Congress’s $10 cap on attorney fees in VA benefits proceedings, finding that the informal, claimant-assisting structure of the program and Congress’s goals of preserving benefits for veterans and avoiding an adversarial process defeated the due process and First Amendment challenges, and it reversed the nationwide injunction that had halted enforcement of the statute.


Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985)