Military-Veterans Advocacy (MVA) secured a major victory for veterans today when a federal court struck down a Louisiana law that improperly regulated representation in veterans’ benefits claims.

In Military-Veterans Advocacy v. Landry, Judge Brian A. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ruled that Louisiana’s “Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans (PLUS) Act” violated the U.S. Constitution and conflicted with federal law governing veterans’ benefits.

The lawsuit, filed on June 5, 2024, challenged the PLUS Act, authored by State Senator Stewart Cathey (R–Monroe). The Act became law after Governor Jeff Landry neither signed nor vetoed it. The statute attempted to regulate individuals and organizations who receive compensation for assisting veterans with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits claims, including imposing limits on fees and requiring mandatory oral and written disclosures.

MVA argued that Congress has already established a comprehensive national framework governing accreditation, compensation, and representation in VA benefits matters. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, MVA asserted that states lack authority to impose additional or conflicting requirements on who may represent veterans before the VA. MVA also challenged the Act’s mandatory disclosure provisions as unconstitutional compelled speech.

The court agreed on all major points.

Judge Jackson held that the PLUS Act imposed unjustified restrictions on free speech and that the State of Louisiana failed to meet its “heavy burden” to justify those restrictions. The court further ruled that the law was preempted by federal law because it interfered with Congress’s carefully constructed regulatory scheme.

In its decision, the court concluded:

“The Act, as written, necessarily impedes the realization of Congress’s goal of ensuring that veterans have access to qualified representatives to assist them in pursuing claims for VA benefits, in violation of the Supremacy Clause,” and that the Act’s mandatory disclosure provision “is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs because it compels speech in a manner that violates Plaintiffs’ right to free expression under the First Amendment.”

MVA Executive Director CDR John B. Wells, USN (Ret.), who represented both MVA and his law firm in the case, praised the ruling as precedential.

“The PLUS Act allowed unqualified, uncertified, and potentially incompetent individuals and organizations to represent veterans with no meaningful safeguards,” Wells said. “Congress has already enacted a carefully considered accreditation and compensation framework. If changes are needed, Congress—not individual states—is the proper body to make them. Notably, three bills addressing these issues are currently pending before Congress.”

A copy of Judge Jackson’s full decision is available upon request.

Media Contact

CDR John B. Wells, USN (Ret.)

Executive Director, Military-Veterans Advocacy

985-290-6940