The High Court Report

Oral Argument: Soto v. United States | Case No. 24-320 | Date Argued: 4/28/25


Listen Later

Case Info: Soto v. United States | Case No. 24-320 | Date Argued: 4/28/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

This case determines whether thousands of medically retired combat veterans should receive all the combat related special compensation (CRSC) that Congress specifically authorized for combat veterans. The government has elected to calculate the period of retroactive compensation due using the procedure in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702) instead of the one in the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)-a maneuver that allows the government to apply the Barring Act's six- year limitations period in order to pay the veterans less. But the Barring Act is a default provision and does not apply where "another law" provides a procedure for calculating the amount due-that is, for "settling" a demand for payment.

Although this Court's precedent defines "settlement" of demands for payment from the federal government as "the administrative determination of the amount due," it has not decided the test for whether a statute provides a settlement procedure that should apply in place of the Barring Act. And agency practice more broadly-which aligns with the test the District Court articulated and is consistent with this Court's definition of "settlement"-is irreconcilable with the novel test that the Federal Circuit applied, although both tests claim reliance on this Court's definition of "settlement."

Question Presented: When a person makes a demand for money from the federal government pursuant to federal statute, what test should courts and agencies use to determine whether that statute includes a settlement procedure that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702)?

Oral Advocates:

  • For Petitioner: Tracy F. Flint, Chicago, Ill.
  • For Respondent: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins

2:07 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin

25:24 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin

30:00 Petitioner Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins

32:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin

57:40 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin

57:46 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

The High Court ReportBy SCOTUS Oral Arguments

  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3

4.3

6 ratings


More shows like The High Court Report

View all
The NPR Politics Podcast by NPR

The NPR Politics Podcast

25,875 Listeners

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts by Slate Podcasts

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

3,533 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

372 Listeners

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke by The Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

695 Listeners

We the People by National Constitution Center

We the People

1,118 Listeners

The Fifth Column by Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch

The Fifth Column

2,888 Listeners

The Lawfare Podcast by The Lawfare Institute

The Lawfare Podcast

6,296 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

112,617 Listeners

Stay Tuned with Preet by Preet Bharara

Stay Tuned with Preet

32,371 Listeners

Today, Explained by Vox

Today, Explained

10,240 Listeners

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat by New York Times Opinion

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

7,071 Listeners

Strict Scrutiny by Crooked Media

Strict Scrutiny

5,776 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,882 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

16,081 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude, Dan Epps

Divided Argument

738 Listeners