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

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

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

Tämä jakso on lisätty Podme-palveluun avoimen RSS-syötteen kautta eikä se ole Podmen omaa tuotantoa. Siksi jakso saattaa sisältää mainontaa.

Jaksot(500)

Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits

Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell | Case No. 24-1068 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 27, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026Overview: Federal pesticide law blocks a Missouri cancer patient's failure-to-warn lawsu...

2 Heinä 15min

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.

Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Doe, et al. | No. 25-1083 (consolidated with Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Miot, et al., No. 25-1084) | Docket: Here | ...

1 Heinä 16min

New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term

New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term

OVERVIEWThree opinions released June 30th, 2026 — the final day of the October 2025 Term — spanning birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in school sports, and political party campaign spending...

30 Kesä 13min

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law

Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado, et al. | Case No. 25-5 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5.html | Argu...

30 Kesä 14min

New Opinions: June 29th |  Phones, the Fed, the FTC, and the Ballot Box

New Opinions: June 29th | Phones, the Fed, the FTC, and the Ballot Box

OVERVIEWFour opinions released June 29th, 2026 — one day, across digital privacy, presidential removal power at two federal agencies, and absentee ballot receipt deadlines.Two decisions split 6-3 alon...

29 Kesä 18min

Opinion Summary: Wolford v. Lopez | Permission Slip Flopped

Opinion Summary: Wolford v. Lopez | Permission Slip Flopped

Wolford v. Lopez | Case No. 24-1046 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: January 20, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026Overview: After Bruen recognized the right to public carry, Hawaii required licensed gun carr...

29 Kesä 13min

Opinion Summary: Blanche v. Lau | Seize Green Cards First and Prove Why Later

Opinion Summary: Blanche v. Lau | Seize Green Cards First and Prove Why Later

Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 22, 2026 | Decided: June 23, 2026Overview: The Court addressed whether border officers must posse...

28 Kesä 15min

Opinion Summary: Pung v. Isabella County | Small Debt, Tiny Check

Opinion Summary: Pung v. Isabella County | Small Debt, Tiny Check

Pung v. Isabella County | Case No. 25-95 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 02/25/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026Overview: A Michigan family lost their $194,400 home at a tax auction for $76,008 over a disputed...

27 Kesä 19min

Suosittua kategoriassa Liike-elämä ja talous

sijotuskasti
psykopodiaa-podcast
mimmit-sijoittaa
rss-rahapodi
vallattomat
ostan-asuntoja-podcast
rss-rahamania
hyva-paha-johtaminen
lakicast
sijoituskaverit
rss-sami-miettinen-neuvottelija
leadcast
rss-avaimet-menestykseen
rahapuhetta
inderespodi
rss-oivalluksia-rahasta-elamasta
rss-pinnan-alle
oppimisen-psykologia
raharesepti
rss-esiintymisklinikka