A federal judge in Louisiana has ruled that a 2024 state law regulating people and organizations that assist veterans with disability benefit claims is unconstitutional, concluding key parts of the law conflict with federal law and with constitutional protections. The ruling in Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. v. Landry was issued by Judge Brian A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
The state law, known as the Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans Act or the PLUS Act, had imposed limits on fees and required specific disclosures by consultants who help veterans seek disability benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The court held that the law is preempted by federal law governing veterans' benefits representation and that some of its provisions violate the First Amendment.
Plaintiffs in the case were Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc., a nonprofit that provides training, advocacy, and information on veterans' law, and the Law Office of John B. Wells, a law firm representing veterans. They filed suit in 2024 against Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill, challenging the statute soon after it was enacted.
Provisions Of The PLUS Act At Issue
The PLUS Act applied to individuals and entities that received compensation to assist veterans with filing or appealing benefit claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The law set a maximum amount that could be charged as a contingent fee on disability benefit awards, required consultants to provide specific written and oral disclosures about alternative sources of assistance, and mandated retention of certain records.
The state also required consultants to inform clients about the availability of assistance from accredited veterans service organizations and from free state and federal programs. The statute imposed penalties for failure to comply with these requirements, including possible disciplinary actions and fines.
Louisiana lawmakers and supporters of the law said it was intended to protect veterans, particularly those with limited resources, from high fees and misleading practices by some private consultants. Opponents argued that the law would burden accredited representatives and interfere with established federal processes for veterans' benefits representation.
Federal Court’s Supremacy Clause Analysis
In its 2026 decision, the federal court ruled that the PLUS Act is preempted by federal law to the extent it creates a separate scheme for regulating representation of veterans before the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under federal law, the VA establishes standards for accrediting attorneys, claims agents, and representatives of veterans service organizations to assist claimants with benefit applications and appeals, and only accredited individuals may be compensated for such assistance. Rules governing accreditation and representation are set forth in Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The court explained that the federal system envisions a uniform national regime for accreditation and standards of conduct for representatives. Allowing states to impose different requirements on who may assist veterans and under what terms would disrupt that uniform system. The court found that Louisiana’s attempt to regulate fee structures and disclosures for compensated representatives directly interferes with the federal statutory and regulatory scheme.
Judge Jackson wrote that the Supremacy Clause requires state law to yield when it conflicts with federal law or stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal objectives. Because the PLUS Act’s provisions would apply to individuals and entities involved in representation before the VA in ways that diverge from federal standards, they are preempted and cannot be enforced.
First Amendment Findings
The court also addressed the statute’s mandatory disclosure requirements, which compelled compensated consultants to provide written and oral advisories about alternative sources of assistance, including free nonprofit and government programs. Citing First Amendment jurisprudence governing compelled speech, the court found that these requirements could not be justified as a regulation of commercial conduct because they obligate speakers to communicate specific messages.
The judge ruled that forcing consultants to make these disclosures without a sufficient evidentiary basis and without tailoring the requirements to address a compelling government interest raises constitutional concerns. The decision noted that while states may impose certain commercial regulations, compelled speech that dictates the content of communications poses a distinct constitutional question requiring rigorous justification.
Because both the preemption and First Amendment analyses led to invalidation of the law’s core provisions, the court held the statute could not be saved by severing only specific sections. The PLUS Act was therefore struck down in its entirety.
Reactions From Veterans Community And State Officials
Veterans advocacy groups responded to the ruling with differing views. The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement saying that the decision preserves the existing accreditation system and avoids confusion that could arise if states adopt divergent regulatory requirements. The organization emphasized that accredited service officers provide free assistance to veterans through established national and local networks.
The National Association of Veteran Rights, a group representing private consultants and advocates for expanded choice in benefits assistance, criticized the decision. The association argued that the PLUS Act had been designed to protect veterans from “predatory” fee arrangements and to ensure transparency, and that the ruling creates uncertainty about how states may protect their residents while respecting federal law.
Louisiana’s Attorney General indicated the state plans to appeal the ruling, stating the legislature’s intent was to protect disabled veterans and the court misapplied principles of federalism and state authority. If an appeal is filed, the case would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Federal Accreditation System And State Regulation
Federal law grants the Department of Veterans Affairs authority to accredit representatives who assist veterans with claims. Accredited representatives include attorneys, claims agents, and officers of recognized veterans service organizations. To become accredited, individuals generally must meet training, ethical, and character requirements established by the VA. These standards aim to ensure competent assistance for veterans navigating benefit claims and appeals.
Louisiana’s law would have allowed certain compensated consultants to operate under state rules that differ from the federal accreditation framework. The court concluded that allowing a separate state regime would create inconsistency with the federal scheme and potentially confuse veterans about who is authorized to represent them in benefit matters.
Implications And Next Steps
The ruling clarifies that states face significant limitations when attempting to regulate individuals or organizations that assist veterans with federally governed benefits claims and appeals. Laws that diverge from federal accreditation standards or impose conflicting requirements risk invalidation under the Supremacy Clause.
How the Fifth Circuit will rule if the case is appealed remains to be seen. The appeal could further define the boundary between state consumer protection efforts and the federal regulatory framework governing veterans' benefits representation.
A Growing Split Among States On Paid Claims Help
Some states are moving in the opposite direction from Louisiana by tightening restrictions on paid, unaccredited help with VA disability claims rather than trying to regulate it with state fee caps and disclosures. California’s new law (SB 694) requires federal accreditation for companies that assist veterans with federal benefits claims and bars unaccredited firms from charging for that help.
Other states have taken a more “consumer-protection” approach that regulates paid assistance through disclosures, fee restrictions, and billing prohibitions rather than an accreditation-only model, including Florida’s statute governing “veterans’ benefits matters,” which requires specified disclosures and bars certain fee practices such as initial or nonrefundable fees.
