The question
Whether the statute providing combat-related special compensation confers authority to settle CRSC claims and therefore displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and 6-year limitations period.
Soto v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that the combat-related special compensation statute displaces the Barring Act's default settlement procedures and its 6-year limitations period. A statute qualifies as "another law" that displaces the Barring Act when it vests an entity with authority to determine both the validity of a claim and the amount due, and Congress need not use the word "settle." The CRSC statute meets that test because it directs the Secretary concerned to determine each applicant's eligibility and to pay a specific monthly amount. The result is that combat-disabled retirees like Soto are not limited to six years of retroactive CRSC payments.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
Delivering the opinion for a unanimous Court, Thomas held that a statute qualifies as another law displacing the Barring Act when it vests an entity with authority to determine both a claim's validity and the amount due, and that Congress need not use the word settle. Applying that test, the CRSC statute directs the Secretary concerned to consider whether an applicant is an eligible combat-related disabled retiree and to pay a specific monthly amount, so it authorizes the Secretary to determine both validity and amount. The statute therefore creates a separate settlement mechanism that displaces the Barring Act's default procedures and its 6-year limitations period. The Federal Circuit erred by imposing undue requirements on Congress's ability to confer settlement authority.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period.
Source: syllabus, Held
A statute confers settlement authority when it vests an entity with power to determine both a claim's validity and the amount due, and Congress need not use magic words such as settle.
Source: syllabus, Held
The CRSC statute directs the Secretary concerned to consider whether an applicant is an eligible combat-related disabled retiree and to pay a specific monthly amount, satisfying the validity and amount requirements.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Federal Circuit erred by imposing undue requirements on Congress's ability to confer settlement authority.
Source: syllabus, Held
Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup