Tag: Soto v. United States

Supreme Court Ruling in Soto v. United States Expands Retroactive CRSC Benefits for Veterans

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Supreme Court Delivers a Legal Victory for Combat-Injured Veterans

In a unanimous decision handed down on June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, affirming that the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations does not apply to Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claims. This landmark ruling significantly expands the scope of retroactive benefits available to thousands of disabled veterans nationwide.

Background

Simon Soto, a retired Marine, applied for CRSC benefits in 2016. While the Navy approved his eligibility, it limited his retroactive compensation to just six years, citing the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702), which generally prohibits payment of claims older than six years. Soto challenged this cap, arguing that the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a) was not subject to the Barring Act because it is administered under a distinct statutory scheme that gives the Secretary of the Navy independent settlement authority.

While a lower court initially sided with Soto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision, prompting Soto to petition the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Ruling

In its opinion in Soto v. United States, No. 23-1053, the Supreme Court ruled that the CRSC statute does indeed grant the Secretary the authority to “settle” claims, thereby placing CRSC outside the Barring Act’s limitations period. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that CRSC’s statutory structure empowers the Secretary to determine eligibility and the amount due—hallmarks of settlement authority.

“The CRSC statute is just such a law,” wrote Justice Jackson. “It authorizes the Secretary of the military department to determine eligibility and calculate the amount payable. The Barring Act therefore does not apply.”

Read the full opinion: Soto v. United States (SCOTUS Opinion, June 12, 2025)

What This Means for Veterans

This decision clears a long-standing bureaucratic hurdle for veterans who were previously capped at six years of retroactive CRSC payments. With the ruling, veterans may now be eligible for compensation dating back to when their entitlement began—even if it was more than six years ago.

This is especially impactful for retirees who:

  • Received delayed disability ratings from the VA.
  • Were unaware of CRSC eligibility due to miscommunication or misinformation.
  • Faced systemic delays in applying.

Estimates suggest that over 9,000 veterans affected by the six-year limit may now pursue additional tax-free benefits. Veterans previously denied full back pay under CRSC should revisit their claims immediately. Legal assistance from attorneys experienced in military compensation law may be essential in pursuing the additional entitlements now available under the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

Legal Citations & Resources

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC did not represent the plaintiff in this case. Veterans seeking to understand how this decision may impact their Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) entitlements are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney experienced in military compensation law. Every case is fact-specific, and legal outcomes may vary.

A Marine’s Right to Be Heard: Why the Supreme Court Must Consider Fairness in Veteran Compensation Cases

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Story of Simon Soto

Simon Soto is a Marine who served in one of the toughest jobs imaginable—recovering and identifying the remains of fallen service members in Iraq. After returning home, he struggled with PTSD and was medically retired in 2006.

Years later, he learned he qualified for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC)—a benefit Congress created to support veterans whose injuries are tied to combat. But his claim was denied. Why? Because he applied more than six years after retirement.

That’s the heart of Soto v. United States, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Fairness Question

Under a law called the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 2501), there’s a six-year deadline to file certain claims for money against the federal government. But CRSC is not a typical lawsuit—it’s a benefit owed to combat-wounded veterans. So the big legal question is:

Does this six-year rule apply to CRSC?

And more importantly:

Is it fair to deny benefits to veterans who were too traumatized—or unaware—to apply on time?

“Deadlines have their place in the law,” says David P. Sheldon, founding attorney of the firm.
“But when those deadlines deny justice to veterans suffering invisible wounds, the law must make room for fairness.”

Why SCOTUS Is Listening—and What Came Before

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Arellano v. McDonough (2023) that equitable tolling does not apply to certain veterans’ disability benefits. That decision upheld a one-year filing deadline, emphasizing that Congress had already written clear limits into the law.

But Soto is different.

Soto argues that his claim falls under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, a law that provides CRSC and its own process for approval—meaning it may not be governed by the Tucker Act’s six-year limit at all.

And that distinction could make all the difference.

Other Cases That Matter

  • In Irwin v. VA (1990), the Court held that time limits in lawsuits against the government can be extended in special situations—like illness or lack of access.
  • In Menominee Tribe v. U.S. (2016), the Court clarified that equitable tolling requires both diligence and extraordinary circumstances.
  • In Bailey v. West (1998), the Federal Circuit emphasized a “sympathetic reading” standard for veterans’ claims—highlighting the need for flexibility in interpreting rules.

 What’s at Stake

If the Court rules against Simon Soto, it could shut out thousands of other veterans whose claims were late—but valid. If it rules for him, it will open a path for those who were unaware, misled, or too mentally unwell to act in time.

According to attorney David Sheldon, “this isn’t just about one Marine. It’s about whether the legal system honors the sacrifices made by all service members and whether the clock should ever run out on justice.”

 About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a nationally recognized law firm focused on federal and military law. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees across the country, advocating for justice in matters of discharge upgrades, medical retirements, courts-martial, and benefits appeals. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.

Legal Disclaimer:
This opinion is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. If you are a service member or veteran facing a legal issue, consult with an attorney who specializes in military or federal law.

Legal References & Sources

Combat-Related Special Compensation (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)

Tucker Act Statute of Limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501)

Arellano v. McDonough (2023) – Supreme Court Opinion (PDF)

Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1990)

Menominee Tribe v. United States (2016)

Bailey v. West (1998) – Case Text

DOJ Brief in Soto v. United States (Feb 2025)