Military-Veterans Advocacy secured a major victory for veterans when a federal court struck down Louisiana’s Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans Act, commonly known as the PLUS Act.
In Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. v. Landry, U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson granted summary judgment against the state, finding that key provisions of the law were unconstitutional.
The ruling reinforces the importance of federal standards governing who may assist veterans with VA disability claims and when fees may be charged.
What Was the Louisiana PLUS Act?
The Louisiana Legislature passed the PLUS Act in 2024.
The law sought to establish a state framework allowing private claims-consulting companies to charge veterans for assistance with VA disability claims. These companies may operate without the accreditation, training and oversight required of representatives formally recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Some claims consultants charge fees based on the additional benefits a veteran receives. Under the Louisiana law, those charges could reach thousands of dollars.
MVA challenged the law because veterans’ benefits representation is governed by federal law and because the state’s approach risked undermining protections created for veterans.
Why VA Accreditation Matters
VA-accredited attorneys, claims agents and veterans service organization representatives must meet federal requirements designed to protect veterans.
Accreditation helps ensure that representatives:
- Understand the VA claims and appeals process
- Meet applicable character and competency requirements
- Follow federal rules governing representation
- Remain accountable for their conduct
- Comply with restrictions on when and how fees may be charged
Many accredited veterans service organizations provide initial claims assistance at no cost. Accredited attorneys and claims agents may generally charge fees only under circumstances permitted by federal law, often after VA has issued an initial decision and the matter has entered the review or appeals process.
Unaccredited consulting companies do not necessarily operate under the same standards or accountability.
What the Federal Court Decided
The court found that the Louisiana PLUS Act conflicted with federal law regulating assistance with veterans’ disability claims.
Judge Jackson ruled that federal law superseded the Louisiana statute under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The court found that the state law interfered with Congress’s objective of ensuring that veterans have access to qualified representatives when pursuing VA benefits.
The court also found that a mandatory disclosure provision violated the First Amendment because it compelled speech without an adequate factual basis.
The disclosure required claims consultants and attorneys to tell clients that the same services were available at no cost through the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs or veterans service organizations. The court recognized that this statement did not accurately reflect every type of service, particularly complex legal representation involving appeals.
Why the Decision Matters for Veterans
Veterans seeking disability benefits are often navigating serious illnesses, financial strain and an extremely complicated claims system. They should be able to trust that individuals offering assistance are qualified, accountable and following federal law.
The ruling matters because it:
- Reinforces federal oversight of veterans’ claims representation
- Protects the role of VA accreditation
- Challenges state efforts to authorize unaccredited claims consulting
- Recognizes the difference between basic claims assistance and complex legal representation
- Helps preserve safeguards intended to protect veterans from excessive fees and misleading practices
The decision does not eliminate unaccredited claims consulting nationwide. Enforcement gaps remain, and similar policy debates continue at both the state and federal levels.
MVA’s Continuing Fight Against Claim Sharks
MVA has worked to educate veterans and lawmakers about companies that charge large fees for assistance with disability claims while operating outside the VA accreditation system.
These companies are frequently called “claim sharks” by veterans advocates because their fees can consume a significant portion of the benefits awarded to a disabled veteran.
MVA supports strong protections for veterans, meaningful enforcement of federal standards and access to qualified assistance throughout the claims and appeals process.
Strategic Litigation Protects More Than One Veteran
MVA v. Landry demonstrates why systemic litigation is an important part of Military-Veterans Advocacy’s mission.
A court case addressing a state law or government policy can protect far more than a single claimant. It can clarify legal standards, prevent harmful practices and preserve safeguards for veterans across an entire jurisdiction.
MVA will continue using litigation, legislation and education to defend veterans’ earned rights and promote accountability within the benefits system.
[Read the Federal Court’s Ruling.]
Learn more about MVA’s litigation.
Support Military-Veterans Advocacy.
This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Veterans seeking assistance with a VA claim should confirm that a representative is properly accredited and authorized to provide the requested services.