Imagine losing your spouse in a tragic accident, only to be told you can’t even seek justice because of an outdated legal precedent.
This is the harsh reality for the widow of Air Force Staff Sergeant Cameron Beck, whose case was recently turned away by the Supreme Court, despite a passionate dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, Fox News reported.
Back in 2021, Beck was leaving a military base in Missouri on his motorcycle, heading to meet his wife and young child for lunch. A civilian government employee, distracted by her phone, struck him, leading to his death at the scene. The employee later admitted fault through a plea deal.
Beck’s widow, seeking accountability, attempted to sue the federal government for her husband’s untimely death. Her claim, however, was swiftly rejected by a federal court, citing a long-standing precedent.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal, pointing to the Feres v. United States doctrine. This rule shields the government from wrongful death lawsuits by families of servicemembers if the incident occurred during duty.
Here’s the rub: Beck wasn’t on a mission or even in uniform—he was off duty, just trying to grab a sandwich with his family. Yet, the courts ruled that the precedent still applied, leaving his widow with no recourse.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a sharp dissent, argued this case was a perfect chance to revisit the Feres precedent. “We should have granted certiorari. Doing so would have provided clarity about [Feres v. United States] to lower courts that have long asked for it,” Thomas stated, per court records.
Thomas didn’t stop there, pointing out the absurdity of the ruling. “Beck was not ordered on a military mission to go home for lunch with his family. So Mrs. Beck should have prevailed under Feres,” he added, cutting through the legal fog with plain logic.
Let’s be real: if a man isn’t on the clock, how can the government hide behind a “duty” excuse? Thomas’s words highlight a glaring flaw in a system that too often prioritizes bureaucratic shields over basic fairness.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while siding with the majority to reject the case, couldn’t ignore the injustice baked into the Feres doctrine. She called for legislative intervention to fix these “deeply unfair results,” acknowledging the pain this precedent inflicts on families like Beck’s.
Four justices are needed to take up a petition, but this case didn’t muster the support. That leaves the widow and others like her stuck in a legal limbo that feels more like a slap in the face than justice.
From a conservative angle, this isn’t about undermining military structure—it’s about holding the government accountable when it fails spectacularly. Why should a distracted employee’s mistake, admitted no less, be swept under a rug of immunity?
The Feres precedent, while perhaps once rooted in protecting military discipline, now seems like a relic that punishes the very families who sacrifice alongside our servicemembers. It’s not “woke” to demand fairness; it’s common sense.
Progressives might argue for sweeping reforms or endless lawsuits, but that’s not the answer either. A targeted fix, as Sotomayor suggested, could balance accountability with the need to protect military operations—Congress just needs to stop dragging its feet.
For now, Beck’s widow is left with grief and a bitter lesson: the system isn’t always on the side of the little guy, even when the facts scream for justice. If this doesn’t light a fire under lawmakers to revisit Feres, what will?
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It now is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to sort out the proper precedent for whether public school students in America can be forcibly indoctrinated with Islamic teachings.
Such as the lesson imposed on students in Chatham Middle School in New Jersey, where seventh-grade students were taught, as fact, "May God help us all find the true faith, Islam."
The fight originated nearly a decade ago when Libby Hilsenrath challenged the district's indoctrination of Islamic beliefs.
The Thomas More Law Center of Michigan now has filed a reply brief on her behalf with the high court, the final written plea for the justices to reverse lower court decisions allowing the teachings.
Hilsenrath had raised concerns as a parent about the school's religious indoctrination. Seventh grade students at the school were ordered to watch a five-minute video, "Intro to Islam," that was "filled with purely Islamic religious beliefs presented as facts during a mandated class in World Cultures and Geography."
Students were ordered to take notes on:
"Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is the last & final Messenger of God. God gave him the Noble Quran."
"What is the Noble Quran? Divine Revelation sent to Muhammad (S) last Prophet of Allah. A Perfect guide for Humanity."
"The Noble Quran: Guidance, Mercy and Blessing for all Mankind."
"The Noble Quran: Without any doubt and an eloquent guide from Allah."
"The Beautiful Quran: Guidance for the wise & sensible."
And "Islam: A shining beacon against the darkness of repression, segregation, intolerance and racism … ."
The bias was documented by the fact the school allowed no similar proselytizing videos involving any other faith, such as Christianity and Judaism.
The lower courts' approval of the teaching is "inconsistent with previous Supreme Court opinions that gave parents and students broad protection from subtle coercive pressures in school settings under the Establishment Clause," the TMLC said.
While the recent Kennedy v. Bremerton decision allows a coach to pray on school property, that ruling didn't overturn any previous precedents, the legal team explained.
The filing argues, "Establishment Clause prevents schools from advancing religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family."
"Lower courts have struggled to determine whether Kennedy articulated a new Establishment Clause test, what that test is, and what impact, if any, that test has on the long-standing Establishment Clause precedents which safeguard parents and their students against coercion in public schools," the legal team said. "Only the Supreme Court can resolve the lower courts' confusion and confirm the heightened protection parents and students enjoy under the Establishment Clause in the public-school setting."
The filing states, "The Free Exercise Clause safeguards 'the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.' … The Establishment Clause protects the same right of religious belief for parents and their children."
Further, existing precedent is that, "Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family."
The dispute is that the district claims it can use "religious texts and teachings" in its classes, but the issue actually is more specific, about the use of "lessons that proselytize or promote a religion that conflicts with a parent's or child's religious beliefs" and whether that violates the Constitution.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court has used a Florida COVID closure order case to deliver a stunning decision about the government's confiscation of property, setting a huge new precedent for closure orders that became common during the pandemic created by the China virus.
In fact, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that government orders shutting down private beaches during that time period violated the Fifth Amendment's ban on government taking property without compensation.
It is constitutional expert Jonathan Turley who pointed out, "This is a major ruling on takings, including the treatment of the limits as a physical rather than regulatory takings. It could find itself before the Supreme Court on that issue."
The case addressed by the 11th Circuit came from COVID-19 closures in April 2020, when authorities ordered private beaches in Walton County, Florida, closed.
The owners sued under the Constitution's Takings Clause.
That explains "private property" shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that the ordinance, 2020-09, "was neither a physical taking nor a regulatory taking."
The judges said, "This case involves a textbook physical taking: Walton County enacted an ordinance barring the Landowners from entering and remaining on their private property; Walton County's officers physically occupied the Landowners' property; and Walton County's officers excluded the Landowners from their own property under threat of arrest and criminal prosecution. In other words, Walton County wrested the rights to possess, use, and exclude from the Landowners, and it took those rights for itself. That triggers the Landowner's right to just compensation."
Turley pointed out because such constitutional precedents sometimes take years to work out, during a pandemic state and local officials were able to enforce "sweeping limitations on individual and property rights."
He said the Constitution confirms the deep commitment of the Founders to protect property.
"John Adams declared that '[p]roperty must be secured, or liberty cannot exist,'" Turley wrote.
The court explained, "Ordinance 2020-09 physically appropriated the Landowners' property because it barred their physical access to the land. And to enforce the Ordinance, the County entered the Landowners' property at will for the specific purpose of excluding the Landowners. The County's officers parked their vehicles on private property to deter entry, used private property as their own highway, and forced Landowners to vacate their property under threat of arrest. Put simply, the County 'entered upon the surface of the land and t[ook] exclusive possession of it,' thereby triggering the right to just compensation."
The lower court had claimed the ordinance taking control of the property was simply a "use" restriction," but was struck down by the 11th.
"Ordinance 2020-09 prohibited the Landowners from physically accessing their beachfront property under any circumstances. That is different from a restriction on how the Landowners could use property they otherwise physically possessed," the court said.
The ruling built on the Supreme Court's decision in a California case that the owners of private land were allowed to bar union organizers from accessing their property. There, a lower court had held that union organizers were allowed to access the land for a certain number of hours a day and a certain number of days a year in order to be "soliciting support" for their union.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has issued a ruling protecting Democrats James Comey and Letitia James from prosecution for now.
Comey, the ex-FBI chief, played a massive role in the Democrats' lawfare against President Trump, and was indicted for lying to Congress. James, who brought a fraud case against Trump's companies, obtained a half billion dollar judgment, then saw it tossed for being unconstitutional, was accused of mortgage fraud for lying on legal documents.
It was Cameron Currie, a South Carolina judge, who dismissed both cases that were being prosecuted by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan.
"I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid," the judge wrote. "And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey's motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice."
Cases dismissed without prejudice ordinarily can be refiled, and the Department of Justice has the option to appeal the ruling from the judge at the entry level of the federal court system.
Currie, appointed by Bill Clinton, and was brought into the Virginia disputes because they were a conflict for judges in that state.
The cases ended up being consolidated.
A DOJ lawyer had said if there was a mistake, it was no more than "at best a paperwork error."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's use of tariffs to pursue his national security and economic agendas is pending before the Supreme Court, as a number of special interests claimed that only Congress could determine those components of the president's agenda.
He has been successful in reaching a long list of international trade agreements that actually create a more fair platform for American manufacturers and consumers.
And now Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is predicting the president will win that fight.
"Tariffs are going to be a part of this administration's national security and national economic protection of the American people," Lutnick told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo.
"We are gonna win the case, it's pretty clear."
The Fox Business report said the White House needs access to tariffs to defend American manufacturing from unfair foreign competition.
If the ruling goes against Trump?
"Lutnick said President Donald Trump has 'all sorts of policies and tools' available, referencing provisions in U.S. trade law such as Sections 232, 301 and 338, which allow the government to impose tariffs or other restrictions in the name of national security or to counter unfair trade practices," the report said.
Lutnick was speaking from Brussels where he was meeting with European leaders, including discussions about the cornerstone of Trump's economic agenda.
"One of the ways to prove to the American people how great tariffs are is to have them share in a part of one year's income from these tariffs and that's $2,000 a head for people who need the money," Lutnick added, referencing a plan raised by Trump some weeks ago about a $2,000 dividend from tariff revenue to low and middle income Americans.
Also possible is using the funds to pay down the nation's $38 trillion debt.
Tariff revenues for America have surged since Trump started using them several months ago, a total of $215.2 billion in fiscal year 2025, which ended Sept. 30. Trump's tariffs only were begun a few months earlier.
The few weeks of fiscal 2026 already have produced more than $40 billion, the report said.
Hold onto your hats, folks—President Donald Trump just notched another legal victory in a battle over what his team calls blatant election meddling in Iowa.
This saga centers on a lawsuit against Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register, alleging fraudulent polling that painted Trump as trailing Kamala Harris just days before he crushed it in Iowa with a double-digit win, Fox News reported.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: a poll by Selzer, released a mere three days before the election, showed Trump down by three points to Harris in Iowa—a state he’s carried three times in a row.
Compare that to a September survey from the same source, which had Trump ahead by four points, and you’ve got a eyebrow-raising seven-point swing that smelled fishy to many.
The media lapped it up, hyping the poll as a historic signal of Midwest momentum shifting toward Harris—only for the actual results to reveal Trump winning by over 13 points, the first double-digit victory in Iowa since 1980.
Trump’s legal team didn’t hold back, accusing Selzer and The Des Moines Register of “brazen election interference” with a poll they claim was designed to undermine his campaign in the final stretch.
Initially, Trump pushed to have the case heard in Iowa State Court, but the defendants shifted it to federal court, where a judge denied his request to move it back.
Enter the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which overruled that decision on Friday, denying Selzer’s appeal and sending the lawsuit right back to state court as Trump wanted.
The 8th Circuit even granted Trump’s petition for a writ of mandamus earlier, instructing a district judge to dismiss the federal case without prejudice, paving the way for a state court refiling.
The defendants tried for further relief with the 8th Circuit, but their petition was shot down, leaving them to face the music in Iowa’s state system.
Polly Grunfeld Sack, USA TODAY Co. Chief Legal Officer, wasn’t shy in her response: “Although we are disappointed that the appellate court has allowed President Trump to avoid the inevitable dismissal of his complaint in Federal Court, running away to state court will not change the outcome of this meritless case.”
Well, Polly, that’s a bold prediction, but let’s see if Iowa’s courts agree—after all, dismissing a case tied to a poll so wildly off the mark might not be the slam dunk you think in a state that clearly backed Trump.
A spokesman for Trump’s legal team fired back with equal vigor: “President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in deception and fake news to account. The Des Moines Register and Gannett knowingly ran a phony poll from the now disgraced Democrat pollster Ann Selzer in an underhanded attempt to interfere in the election and defraud the country into believing Kamala Harris was winning the state of Iowa and nationwide, mere hours before she lost Iowa and the overall election by an overwhelming margin to President Trump.”
That’s a hefty charge, and while some might scoff at the “fake news” label, a poll this far off does raise questions about whether it was more about narrative than numbers—something conservatives have long warned against in media-driven agendas.
Meanwhile, Selzer herself has stepped away, announcing her retirement from election polling to chase “other ventures” shortly after the election, leaving many to wonder if this lawsuit played a role in her exit. It’s hard not to see this as a quiet admission that something went awry, even if no one’s saying it out loud.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two leftist organizations have filed court action because two leftist states are failing to comply with a clearly leftist agenda point.
It is Courthousenews that revealed the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health have sued the Trump administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, because California and Colorado have air pollution.
The complaint involves the State Implementation Plans submitted by the states.
"To set national air quality standards, each state or air regulator in the U.S. submits a State Implementation Plan with a timeline to tackle pollution," the report explained. "With the EPA's approval within two years of submission of such a state plan, a Federal Implementation Plan is enacted.
"Numerous SIP elements, submitted by both the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (California) and the State of Colorado for the West Mojave Desert and Denver Metro/North Front Range nonattainment areas, respectively, have now languished before EPA, without receiving final approval or disapproval, for years," the lawsuit charges.
"Additionally, EPA has failed to promulgate a FIP for Colorado, after partially disapproving its SIP two years ago."
The claims are that the federal government is underserving the California and Colorado residents.
"Trump's EPA is forcing millions of people to breathe extremely harmful levels of smog, day after day," Ryan Maher, of the Center for Biological Diversity, charged. "As this administration gives handout after handout to the fossil fuel industry and other polluters, we're counting on the courts to step in and protect public health."
Of course, most of the time during which the EPA allegedly didn't act was under the supervision of the Joe Biden administration.
"The plaintiffs say that the agency has sat on plans submitted by California in 2020 and 2023 and failed to take action by May 2025, as the act requires," the report said. Trump had been in office only a few months at that time.
"With regard to Colorado, the 'EPA disapproved the SIP revisions ¬— submitted by Colorado on May 14, 2018, May 13, 2020, March 22, 2021, May 18, 2021, and May 20, 2022 — citing their lack of 'sufficient reporting requirements,' which illegally undermine the ability of the public to enforce the rules being incorporated into Colorado's SIP,' causing further delay and prompted the organizations to file suit," the report said.
So after years of inaction by the Biden administration, the lawsuit now is trying to "push the EPA to act as soon as possible."
Judge Matthew Thornhill has resigned after being reprimanded for wearing an Elvis Presley wig while on the bench, the BBC reported. The judge is a self-proclaimed superfan of the late "Hound Dog" singer and is the longest-serving circuit judge in St. Charles County, Missouri.
A report by the Missouri's Commission on Retirement, Removal, and Discipline of Judges found that Thornhill "would routinely wear an Elvis Presley wig on or about October 31." Thornhill's antics included injecting references to The King during court proceedings, even if they were "irrelevant" to the case at hand.
Thornhill would sometimes use lyrics or reference Presley's birthday during proceedings that had nothing to do with what was transpiring in the courtroom. He would also sometimes offer to swear in witnesses or litigants while Elvis's greatest hits blared from his phone.
The judge said he did this "to add levity at times when I thought it would help relax litigants," but has since realized it was a mistake. "I now recognise that this could affect the integrity and solemnity of the proceedings," Thornhill said in a letter to the court on Nov. 12.
The judges made a mockery of his courtroom with these antics, and many in the media and on social media have had fun at Thornhill's expense. For instance, the New York Post shared photos of Thornhill in his absurd wig on X on Thursday.
"He’s left the building! Missouri judge loses job for ‘routinely’ wearing Elvis wig on bench, playing his music at hearings," the caption reads, adding an Elvis pun while also mocking Thornhill's exit from the bench.
He’s left the building! Missouri judge loses job for ‘routinely’ wearing Elvis wig on bench, playing his music at hearings https://t.co/ZybaC32EWk pic.twitter.com/aA4L7193bF
— New York Post (@nypost) November 20, 2025
However, Thornhill's unseriousness is no laughing matter. Other problems in his disciplinary report state that he would also share his political views from the bench and ask lawyers, litigants, and witnesses whether they had seen his "Thornhill for Judge" signs he posted during his campaign for judge.
Because the commission determined that Thornhill "failed to maintain order and decorum in the courtroom," it was recommended that he receive a six-month suspension without pay. He'll have to serve another 18 months on the bench before he can retire.
This disciplinary action wasn't the first time Thornhill ended up on the wrong side of a disciplinary investigation. In 2008, Thornhill was fined $750 for allegedly reducing charges for a woman who offered to give him a baseball autographed by Terry Bradshaw, a Pro Football Hall of Famer, Fox News reported.
The judge has denied taking the ball, which also happened to be a fake. However, Thornhill is not the only person to wear something ridiculous in court, though there seems to be a double standard. As the New York Post reported, transgender public defender Stephanie Mueller shamelessly showed up to court in a tight, cleavage-bearing top and a miniskirt.
The gender-confused individual also wore heavy makeup that bordered on absurd, along with bold jewelry. This outfit would be completely unacceptable for a biological woman, but was tolerated by the left-leaning court and did not receive the same treatment as an Elvis wig.
Due to popular demand, I'm posting the extended cut of my interview with public defender Stephanie Mueller. The transgender attorney is representing one of the far-left activists charged with disrupting a council meeting in February.
Otherwise, this is Seattle. What's the big… https://t.co/rYo4nrj9Wu pic.twitter.com/fuTP4qObvu— Jonathan Choe (@choeshow) April 5, 2024
The truth is that we live in a nation with unserious people. A court of law is supposed to be dignified as the matters there come down to someone's freedom or even life or death. Thornhill and others should save their personalities for their free time, not for the court.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just threw a lifeline to Texas Republicans with a last-minute block on a federal court’s decision to toss out the state’s new congressional map.
On November 21, 2025, Alito issued an administrative stay, ensuring the disputed boundaries remain in play while the Supreme Court mulls over the case, giving GOP candidates a fighting chance as challenges mount, The Daily Caller reported.
Earlier this year, Texas Republicans, nudged by former President Donald Trump, redrew the state’s congressional map to bolster their odds of maintaining control in upcoming elections.
This new layout, with potential for up to five GOP pickups, didn’t sit well with everyone, especially advocacy groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens.
Just days ago, on November 18, a federal panel in the Western District of Texas, by a tight 2-1 vote, declared the map likely a racial gerrymander, striking it down and igniting a firestorm.
Governor Greg Abbott wasn’t about to let that stand, filing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday evening, pushing for clarity before the candidate filing deadline on December 8.
Enter Justice Alito, who personally signed the stay on November 21, halting the lower court’s ruling and allowing candidates to keep filing under the contested map.
The Supreme Court’s order was crystal clear: The district court’s decision “is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.”
Well, that’s a polite way of saying, “Hold your horses, we’re not done yet,” while giving Texas Republicans breathing room against a progressive push to redraw the lines.
Alito’s order didn’t just hit pause—it set a tight clock, requiring challengers like the League of United Latin American Citizens to submit responses by Monday at 5 p.m. EST.
Abbott’s appeal highlighted the stakes, warning that “the confusion sown by the district court’s eleventh-hour injunction poses a very real risk of preventing candidates from being placed on the ballot and may well call into question the integrity of the upcoming election,” as reported by The Hill.
Now, isn’t that a kicker? While some cry foul over gerrymandering, others see a judicial overreach threatening to upend a critical election process at the last second.
Governor Abbott has urged the justices to make a final call by December 1, hoping to lock in certainty before the filing period closes.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in after Monday’s responses, potentially shaping not just Texas’ political landscape but also the broader debate over electoral fairness.
Let’s be real—while critics of the map decry it as unfair, the timing of the lower court’s ruling feels like a deliberate wrench in the gears, and Alito’s stay might just keep the system from grinding to a halt.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Although the U.S. military's mandate that service members receive the COVID-19 shot, implemented under the Biden administration, has been widely deemed "unlawful as implemented," and while many calls have since emerged for pardons or amnesty for those service members negatively impacted, these urgent requests have largely been ignored.
On June 2, 2025, representatives from Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (STARRS), the MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates and the Calvert Task Group signed on to a letter sent to President Donald Trump.
The letter accurately stated that "mandatory COVID shots from 2021 to 2023, as well as the earlier anthrax vaccinations from 1997 to 2003, were formally declared by federal officials to be 'unlawful as implemented' and 'illegal,' respectively."
For this reason, the seven signatories respectfully requested that President Trump "order full and unconditional pardons, amnesty and remedies for all Service Members negatively impacted, in any way, by the military's anthrax and COVID mandates."
Regarding the letter, WorldNetDaily interviewed three top people from the STARRS organization. Air Force Col. (Ret.) Ron Scott, president and CEO of STARRS, confirmed that the letter was sent via certified mail with a return receipt requested.
Army Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Joe Arbuckle, STARRS vice chairman-at-large of the board, noted "it has been over five months since our letter was sent to the president requesting that he grant pardons and/or amnesty to those who refused the unlawful Covid and anthrax vaccinations," and to date, there has been no response.
Mike Rose, STARRS executive vice president and general counsel, asserted the president should grant pardons or amnesty to everyone penalized by the military for not receiving the COVID-19 shot, which the government now acknowledges was unjust and illegal as implemented. He argued, "The failure to give pardons/amnesty prolongs the irreparable damage caused by the illegal military COVID mandate, and the failure to even answer requests for pardons/amnesty makes military members feel no one cares to remedy timely the harms the government illegally caused."
To assess the interest in pardons or amnesty among service members themselves, this reporter recently conducted a small-scale, informal survey. All participants were active members of the U.S. military, representing all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
When asked whether President Trump and War Secretary Hegseth should consider amnesty or pardons for service members whose records were adversely impacted by the COVID-19 shot, 65 out of 66 respondents, or 98.5%, answered "Yes." The reason for their answer hinges largely on the fact that 58 out 66 respondents, or 88%, also believe the shot was unlawful – and many informed their chain of command of this while requesting accommodation or exemption for the shot.
About 70% of the respondents who answered the question referred to a pertinent law, 10 U.S. Code § 1107a, in their requests for religious accommodations and/or medical exemptions, declaring the shot mandate illegal.
10 U.S. Code § 1107a states that individuals must be informed of their right to accept or decline the administration of a product. In the case of a product authorized for emergency use, like the previously mandated COVID-19 shot, only the president can waive this federal regulation. The code was not waived by former President Joe Biden.
The Department of Defense clearly ignored the law. Will Secretary Pete Hegseth's Department of War right the wrongs?
Taking a step in that direction, Arbuckle pointed out that the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness is in the process of forming two task forces to "address some of the vaccination remedy issues" through the review of policy development and implementation of the military's now-rescinded COVID-19 shot mandate.
Arbuckle also added there is "good news and bad news" coming from the Department of Veterans Affairs. On the positive side, he said, "899 cases have had their discharges upgraded to honorable, allowing them GI Bill benefits from the VA." However, he argued, "it appears this is happening based upon individual service members going through the appeal process using the sluggish Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) process.