1. In Rose v. Rose , 481 U.S. 619, 641-642 (1987), Justice Scalia stated in his
concurring opinion:
"I am not persuaded that if the Administrator [now Secretary of
Veterans Affairs] makes an apportionment ruling, a state court
may enter a conflicting child support order. It would be
extraordinary to hold that a federal officer's authorized
allocation of federally grantedfunds between two claimants can
be overridden by a state official .
I also disagree with the Court 's construction of 38 U.S.C. §
211(a), which provides that "decisions of the Administrator on
any question of law or fact under any law administered by the
Veterans ' Administration providing benefits for veterans and
their dependents...shall be final and conclusive and no other
official or any court of the United States shall have power or
jurisdiction to review any such decision ." The Court finds this
inapplicable because it does not explicitly exclude state-court
jurisdiction , as it does federal... and because its underlying
purpose of "achieving] uniformity in the administration of
veterans ' benefits and protecting] the Administrator from
expensive and time-consuming litigation "...would not be
impaired. I would find it inapplicable for a much simpler reason.
Had the Administrator granted or denied an application to
apportion benefits , state-court action providing a contrary
disposition would arguably conflict with the language of § 211
making his decisions "final and conclusive " - and if so would
in my view be pre-empted , regardless of the Court 's perception
that it does not conflict with the "purposes " of § 211. But there
is absolutely no need to pronounce upon that issue here.
Because the Administrator can make an apportionment only
upon receipt of a claim...and because no claim for
apportionment of the benefits at issue here has ever been filed,
the Administrator has made no "decision " to which finality and
conclusiveness can attach. Rose , 481 U.S. at 641-42 (emphasis
added).
Where the Secretary of the VA has denied a claim for apportionment of
veterans ' disability benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5307, may the state
count these benefits as available income for purposes of a state court
support order?

2. Where, after Rose, supra , Congress gave the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
exclusive jurisdiction to "decide all questions of law andfact necessary to
a decision " affecting "the provision of benefits...to veterans or the
dependents or survivors of veterans, " see 38 U.S.C. § 511 (emphasis
added); and, "as to any such question " made such decisions "final and
conclusive " and unreviewable "by any other official or by any courtf id.
(emphasis added); and created an Article I Court in the Veterans Judicial
Review Act (VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, 102 Stat. 4105, for exclusive
appellate review of such decisions, does a state court have jurisdiction or
authority to directly or indirectly order a disposition of these benefits in a
manner contrary to the initial benefit determination?

3. Congress 's enumerated military powers preempt all state law concerning
disposition of military benefits. Howell v. Howell , 137 S. Ct.

Whether state courts may order the inclusion of veterans' disability benefits as income for purposes of calculating child support obligations, despite federal law prohibiting the garnishment or attachment of such benefits