Soto v. United States

Simon Soto, a Marine Corps veteran who served from 2000 to 2006 and was medically retired due to PTSD, applied for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) in 2016. Although approved, the Secretary of the Navy limited his retroactive pay to six years under the Barring Act's statute of limitations. Soto filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a) constitutes "another law" that displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures. The District Court ruled in his favor, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, heard arguments on April 28, 2025, and delivered a unanimous decision on June 12, 2025.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit's decision. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion, holding that the CRSC statute does confer settlement authority and thus displaces the Barring Act's procedures and limitations period. The Court reasoned that the statute creates a comprehensive compensation scheme authorizing the Secretary to determine claim validity and amount due. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Whether the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a) confers authority to settle CRSC claims, thereby displacing the Barring Act's default settlement procedures and its six-year limitations period. The core question was whether the CRSC statute's provisions vest the Secretary with the power to determine both the validity of claims and the amount due—constituting a separate settlement mechanism under the Barring Act's exception.

The ruling benefits over 9,000 combat-disabled veterans nationwide who had their retroactive CRSC payments capped. Veterans advocates hailed the decision as ensuring that "veterans will finally receive the full amount of the compensation they earned through their service and sacrifice". The unanimous decision clarified that Congress need not use "magic words" to create a separate settlement mechanism, reinforcing broad statutory interpretation in veterans' benefits cases. The case represents a significant victory for veterans' rights and sets a precedent limiting the Barring Act's application to specialized compensation programs.