Traynor v. Turnage

485 U.S. 535, 108 S. Ct. 1372 (1988)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Traynor v. Turnage

United States Supreme Court
485 U.S. 535, 108 S. Ct. 1372 (1988)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Eugene Traynor (plaintiff) and James McKelvey (plaintiff) both began drinking as children and ultimately developed primary alcoholism, meaning alcoholism not caused by underlying mental illness. Both Traynor and McKelvey were honorably discharged active-duty military veterans. After discharge, both Traynor and McKelvey were repeatedly hospitalized for their alcoholism or related complications. Eventually, both Traynor and McKelvey stopped drinking and were considered recovering alcoholics. Using the GI Bill’s educational benefits, both Traynor and McKelvey attended educational institutions after being discharged from the military; however, their alcoholism prevented them from finishing their educations within the GI Bill’s 10-year time limit. Under the GI Bill, veterans who were unable to complete their education within the 10-year time limit because of a physical or mental disability not caused by “willful misconduct” were exempt from the 10-year limit. Pursuant to that exception, both Traynor and McKelvey applied for extensions of their educational benefits, arguing that (1) they were unable to complete their educations within the 10-year time limit because they were disabled by alcoholism; (2) their alcoholism was not caused by “willful misconduct”; and (3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibited veterans from being denied federal benefits, like GI Bill’s educational benefits, solely because of disability. The Veterans’ Administration (VA) (defendant) refused to extend Traynor’s and McKelvey’s educational benefits because the VA defined primary alcoholism as a disability caused by “willful misconduct.” The district court reversed, holding that alcoholism was a disability and that the Rehabilitation Act prohibited the VA from denying Traynor and McKelvey benefits because of their disabilities. The District of Columbia Circuit reversed on appeal, holding that the VA could classify alcoholism as a willfully caused disability and use that classification to deny benefits. Traynor and McKelvey appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Blackmun, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership