Veterans canon under the gun

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States decided Rudisill v. McDonough, No. 22-888. At issue was a technical question concerning educational benefits afforded to veterans who qualify under two separate GI Bills. Of broader potential interest is the hostile treatment of the so-called "veterans canon" in both the concurring opinion of Justice Brett Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett) and the dissenting opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Samuel Alito). Under that canon, statutes that confer benefits on veterans are construed in the veteran's favor. To quote Justice Kavanaugh, "[a] substantive canon [--this is one--] is a judicial presumption in favor of or against a particular substantive outcome." Four votes is one short of a majority, but it's close. What other substantive canons might come under attack in the future? In Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 599 U.S. 555, 572 (2023), Justice Thomas, concurring, called into question one of the Indian canons of statutory construction. His Rudisill dissent cites that concurrence without elaboration.