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

EPISODE · Apr 28, 2025 · 1H 2M

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

from The High Court Report

Case Info: Soto v. United States | Case No. 24-320 | Date Argued: 4/28/25Link 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 GeneralWebsite Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins2:07 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin25:24 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin30:00 Petitioner Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins32:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin57:40 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin57:46 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Apr 28, 2025

Embed this episode

NOW PLAYING

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

0:00 1:02:50

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of The High Court Report?

This episode is 1 hour and 2 minutes long.

When was this The High Court Report episode published?

This episode was published on April 28, 2025.

Can I download this The High Court Report episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!