No. 24-320

Simon A. Soto, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United States

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2024-09-20
Status: Judgment Issued
Type: Paid
Amici (5)Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-determination barring-act combat-veterans federal-statute settlement-procedure special-compensation
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-01-17 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

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)?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

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)?

Docket Entries

2025-07-14
Judgment Issued.
2025-06-12
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-320_m648.pdf'>opinion</a> for a unanimous Court.
2025-04-28
Argued. For petitioner: Tacy F. Flint, Chicago, Ill. For respondent: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
2025-04-18
2025-04-18
Reply of Simon A. Soto submitted.
2025-04-02
Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
2025-04-02
Brief of United States submitted.
2025-03-19
CIRCULATED
2025-03-10
Brief amici curiae of Connecticut Veterans Legal Center, et al. filed.
2025-03-10
Brief amicus curiae of National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium filed.
2025-03-10
Brief amici curiae of Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. and Disabled American Veterans filed.
2025-03-10
Brief amici curiae of Connecticut Veterans Legal Center et al. filed.
2025-03-10
Amicus brief of National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium submitted.
2025-03-03
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
2025-03-03
2025-03-03
Joint Appendix submitted.
2025-03-03
Brief of Simon A. Soto submitted.
2025-03-03
Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
2025-02-28
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
2025-02-24
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 28, 2025.
2025-01-17
Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: Given the Federal Circuit's holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U. S. C. §1413a is a claim "involving ... retired pay" under 31 U. S. C. §3702(a)(l)(A), does 10 U. S. C. §1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?
2025-01-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025.
2024-12-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-12-03
Reply of petitioner Simon A. Soto filed. (Dec.10, 2024) (Distributed)
2024-11-20
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2024-10-21
Brief amicus curiae of National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium filed.
2024-10-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 20, 2024.
2024-10-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 21, 2024 to November 20, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-09-18

Attorneys

Connecticut Veterans Legal Center et al.
Amy Mason SahariaWilliams & Connolly LLP, Amicus
Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. and Disabled American Veterans
Melanie Lynn BostwickOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium
Katie Marie BeckerUniversity of Missouri Veterans Clinic, Amicus
Simon A. Soto
Johnnet Simone JonesSidley Austin LLP, Petitioner
Tacy Fletcher FlintSidley Austin LLP, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent