Roland Hills v. United States
── Roland Hills v. United States ──
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date: April 21, 2026
Category: General
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 25-5100 September Term, 2025
1:23-cv-03157-TSC
Filed On: April 21, 2026
Roland Hills,
Appellant
v.
United States of America, et al.,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Wilkins, Katsas, and Rao, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by appellant and the Veterans of
Foreign Wars (“VFW”) appellees. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It
is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 28, 2025, order
dismissing this case be affirmed as to appellant’s claims against the VFW appellees.
Subject to exceptions not at issue here, determinations by the Department of Veterans
Affairs on “all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision . . . under a law that
affects the provision of benefits” are “final and conclusive and may not be reviewed . . .
by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 511(a). This court has already concluded that this statute barred the district court
from exercising jurisdiction over appellant’s claims against the federal appellees. See
Hills v. United States, No. 25-5100, 2025 WL 2423303, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21, 2025)
(per curiam). Appellant has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the same
conclusion does not apply to his claims against the VFW appellees. See Blue Water
Navy Vietnam Veterans Ass’n, Inc. v. McDonald, 830 F.3d 570, 574 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 25-5100 September Term, 2025
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
Page 2
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}