Soto v. United States (24-320)

argument 24-320

Soto v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in Soto v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case twenty four three twenty, Soto versus United States. Ms. Flint.

Ms. Flint 0:06

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court, this case starts and ends with the text of the combat related special compensation statute. Because that statute grants the Secretary concerned authority to settle claims for CRSC, the Barring Act does not apply. A statute grants settlement authority if it authorizes a specific government official to do two things determine whether a claim is valid and determine the amount due. Settlement authority does not exist if a statute merely creates a substantive right to payment. The grant of authority to a specific official to administratively determine the validity of the claim and the amount due is the touchstone. The CRSC statute does that. Start with subsection D.

Ms. Flint 0:45

It provides for the Secretary of a Military Department to consider whether a veteran is eligible for CRSC using CRSC specific procedures and criteria. Because subsection D authorizes the Secretary to consider whether a veteran is eligible for CRSE, It authorises a specific government official to determine whether the claim is valid. Then subsections A and B say the Secretary concerned shall determine the amount of CRSC owed, meaning a specific official is authorized to determine the amount due. The CRSC statute in this way grants the Secretary concerned all authority needed to determine validity and amount due, so the Barring Act does not apply. Other military compensation statutes that the government has pointed to don't have all of these provisions, requiring a particular government official to use particular procedures to determine an individual's entitlement to a particular benefit.

Ms. Flint 1:36

All of this is in the CRSC statute because CRSC is different from a lot of other forms of military compensation. Only veterans who prove that they have a combat related disability are entitled to it, and Congress provided that the Secretary of the Military Department where the veterans served is the appropriate official to make that CRSC specific determination. Other statutes establish substantive entitlements to benefits, they don't designate a particular government official to determine validity of the claim, and the amount due. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:08

And yet the government argues that if we agree with you uh there would be uh considerable number of other statutes uh that would uh confer settlement uh settlement uh authority.

Ms. Flint 2:22

Yes, Justice Thomas. The government has pointed to a number of statutes that it says have some similarities to Section 1413A. So

Clarence Thomas 2:30

how do you disagree I mean where do you think the government is wrong? 'Cause y in your argument you indicate that uh There there is there are no other statutes, at least in the defence area.

Ms. Flint 2:43

Right. So some of the statutes they point to, such as the basic pay statute, that's the kind of statute I was referring to that establishes who's entitled to the compensation and how much is owed. That those statutes don't say anything about a specific government official determining validity and amount due. Some of the other statutes they point to authorize an official to determine one fact, such as whether a service member is presumed dead for purposes of the survivor annuity benefit plan. That too, you know, d authority to determine a fact, a predicate fact. That may be relevant to whether a claim is valid and the amount due, but that is not complete authority to determine validity and amount due on a claim.

Ms. Flint 3:24

So looking through the statutes they've cited. Uh we've struggled to find, you know, many of them that actually satisfy what we view as the test for settlement authority. An an official with authority to determine validity and the amount due.

Unknown 3:39

When when you say you've struggled, I mean do you see any of them? I think there are about fifty statutes in the government's brief. I d I I think there are and and One, two, three, five? Are there any that essentially would be taken down with A decision in your favor?

Ms. Flint 3:56

Um so we identified one in our brief, the death gratuity statute, section fourteen seventy nine.