Rudisill v. McDonough — en banc rehearing granted on GI Bill entitlement questions

In this order, the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc in an appeal involving education-benefit entitlement under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The court denied panel rehearing, granted rehearing en banc, vacated the prior panel opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, 4 F.4th 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and reinstated the appeal for new briefing. The order identifies two briefing questions: the statutory entitlement for a veteran who qualifies for both programs under separate periods of qualifying service, and the relationship between the 48-month cap in 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a) and the 36-month entitlement in 38 U.S.C. § 3327(d)(2).

Because this is a rehearing order rather than a merits decision, the court did not decide the underlying statutory issue. Its practical significance is procedural: it removed the panel decision from precedential effect and set the case for full en banc consideration of the statutory structure governing veterans’ education benefits.

A Federal Circuit panel opinion may be vacated when rehearing en banc is granted, and the appeal is restored for full en banc briefing on the identified statutory questions.

This order is a procedural reset, not a merits ruling. It matters because it vacated the prior panel decision and set up en banc review of how GI Bill entitlement limits interact for veterans with multiple qualifying service periods.

Although the order does not interpret the statutes on the merits, it matters to education-benefits practice because it identifies the precise statutory questions the Federal Circuit considered important enough for en banc review. Advocates handling GI Bill overlap issues should track the later en banc decision rather than rely on the vacated panel opinion.

A veteran with one period of service qualifying for Montgomery GI Bill benefits and a later period qualifying for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits seeks to understand whether total entitlement is limited to 36 months or can reach 48 months under the statutory scheme. This order signals that the Federal Circuit required en banc briefing on that question.

Cite this order only for the procedural point that the panel opinion was vacated and the case was set for en banc review. Do not cite it as authority on the merits of GI Bill entitlement; use the eventual en banc opinion for substantive statutory analysis.

Rudisill v. McDonough