Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Soto v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Soto v. United States
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: April 28, 2025
Decided: June 12, 2025
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Soto v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 12, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 28, 2025.

In a 9-0 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims. Therefore, it displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned 10 U.S.C. §1413a and the Barring Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Given the federal circuit's holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. §1413a is a claim 'involving... retired pay' under 31 U.S.C. §3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. §1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?"[2]
  • The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Simon A. Soto, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
      • Legal counsel: Johnnet Simone Jones (Sidley Austin LLP), Tacy Fletcher Flint (Sidley Austin LLP)
    • Respondent: United States

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    “ Simon Soto, a Marine Corps veteran with a combat-related disability, was medically retired in 2006 with less than 20 years of service. Although he became eligible for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) in 2009 when he received his disability rating, he did not apply until 2016. The Navy used the Barring Act’s six-year limitation period to calculate his retroactive payments, giving him payments dating back only to 2010 instead of to 2008 when Congress had expanded CRSC eligibility to veterans with less than 20 years of service. Soto filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated veterans who received only six years of back payments, arguing that the CRSC statute’s own procedures should apply instead of the Barring Act’s six-year limit.

    The district court granted summary judgment to Soto’s class, holding that the CRSC statute was more specific and therefore superseded the Barring Act. The court also applied the pro-veteran canon of statutory interpretation, resolving any doubt in favor of the veterans. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ GIVEN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S HOLDING THAT A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION UNDER 10 U. S. C. §1413a IS A CLAIM 'INVOLVING ... RETIRED PAY' UNDER 31 U. S. C. §3702(a)(1) (A), DOES 10 U. S. C. §1413a PROVIDE A SETTLEMENT MECHANISM THAT DISPLACES THE DEFAULT PROCEDURES AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN THE BARRING ACT?[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims. Therefore, it displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    Title 31 U. S. C. §3702, known as the Barring Act, establishes a default settlement regime for certain claims brought against the Government. The Barring Act subjects most claims to a 6-year limitations period. §3702(b)(1). But, the Act includes an exception: If ‘another law’ confers authority to settle a claim against the Government, then that law displaces the Barring Act’s settlement mechanism—including its limitations period—as to that claim. §3702(a). The question before us is whether a law providing ‘[c]ombat-related special compensation’ (CRSC) to qualifying veterans confers authority to settle CRSC claims. 10 U. S. C. §1413a. We hold that it does, and thus that the settlement procedures and limitations established under the Barring Act do not apply to claims for CRSC payments.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Soto v. United States," June 12, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-320 SOTO V. UNITED STATES QP", January 17, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-320," accessed February 5, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 28, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 28, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Soto_v._United_States&oldid=10414124"