Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

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

1:02:50
 
Share
 

Manage episode 479626596 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

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

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

  continue reading

94 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 479626596 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

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

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

  continue reading

94 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Listen to this show while you explore
Play