Docket 24-320
Soto v. United States
DecidedJun 12, 2025
9-0decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court rules combat-disabled veterans can receive full retroactive pay without a 6-year time limit
Impact4/10
What it does
The Court held that the CRSC statute — which gives combat-disabled military retirees special compensation payments — creates its own complete claims process that replaces the Barring Act's default rules, including its 6-year time limit. Because the CRSC law authorizes the relevant Secretary to determine both whether a veteran qualifies and how much they are owed, it functions as a standalone settlement mechanism. As a result, the government cannot use the Barring Act's 6-year cap to limit how far back eligible veterans can receive retroactive CRSC payments.
Who benefits
Combat-disabled military retirees who applied for CRSC payments and were approved, but whose retroactive compensation was cut off at six years by the government. Veterans whose approved CRSC claims cover periods dating back further than six years before their application stand to receive additional back pay.
Who is affected
The federal government and the military branch secretaries (Army, Navy, Air Force, Homeland Security), who must now process and pay CRSC claims without applying the Barring Act's 6-year cutoff, potentially increasing retroactive payment obligations.
Practical impact
Combat-disabled military retirees whose CRSC applications were approved but whose retroactive payments were capped at six years may now be entitled to back pay going further into the past — potentially back to January 1, 2008, when Congress expanded CRSC eligibility. The military branch secretaries must recalculate and reprocess affected claims without applying the Barring Act's 6-year limitation. The case was sent back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Majority — Thomas
Joined by: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Alito
The majority held that "settling" a claim against the government means determining two things: whether the claim is valid, and how much money is owed. The Court reasoned that the CRSC statute does exactly both — it directs the Secretary concerned to evaluate whether a veteran is eligible (determining validity) and prescribes a specific formula for calculating monthly payment amounts (determining the amount due). The majority rejected the Federal Circuit's requirement that Congress must use the word "settle" or other specific language to create a settlement mechanism, reaffirming that Congress does not need to use "magic words" to convey legal authority. The Court also rejected the argument that a settlement mechanism must include its own statute of limitations, reasoning that for a small, well-defined group of particularly deserving claimants, Congress could reasonably have chosen not to impose a time limit. Taken together, the CRSC statute's provisions form a self-contained, comprehensive compensation scheme that displaces the Barring Act's default procedures in their entirety.
Constitutional question
Does the federal law providing Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) to qualifying veterans create its own settlement process that displaces the Barring Act's default 6-year time limit on claims against the government?