Supreme Court Issue 9-0 Ruling in Favor of Disabled Combat Veterans
In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of some nine thousand veterans entitled to combat related VA benefits. The number of troops currently affected may seem low, but this decision has major implications for veterans of future conflicts.
The Supreme Court case Soto V. United States was decided 9-0 in favor of the plaintiffs who sought redress from the government because the VA imposed a six-year time limit to apply for back pay related to VA Combat-Related Special Compensation.
Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC)
This Supreme Court case was a legal dispute over retroactive payments and the statute of limitations to apply for them related to VA Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). A class of over 9,000 veterans argued that this time limit was improperly applied to their benefits.
Combat-Related Special Compensation is a benefit managed by the Department of Defense. According to information from the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), which represented the veterans, CRSC is intended to “restore military retirement pay” reduced due to a veteran receiving other VA disability compensation. Why?
Becase federal law requires a dollar-for-dollar offset, meaning a retiree’s retirement check is lowered by the amount of their VA disability payment.
The CRSC program was created by Congress and is meant to repay this offset amount to retirees whose disabilities are specifically connected to combat, allowing them to receive the full value of both their retirement and disability pay.
>Never miss a benefits update. Subscribe to the MyMilitaryBenefits Newsletter NOW.
Why was there a legal dispute over this benefit?
The dispute arose because the government applied a law known as the Barring Act to VA CRSC claims. This general law sets a six-year time limit on most monetary claims filed against the United States.
When eligible veterans like the lead plaintiff, Simon Soto, applied for CRSC, the government agreed they were entitled to the benefit but would only provide retroactive payments going back a maximum of six years from the application date.
The veterans contended that they were owed payments back to the date of their eligibility, which for many was longer than six years. This application of the Barring Act led to the class-action lawsuit.
What was the legal argument for applying a time limit?
The government argued that the Barring Act’s six-year time limit was a standard administrative rule that applied broadly to financial claims.
From this viewpoint, CRSC was a monetary claim against the government and was, therefore, subject to this general statute of limitations, especially since the specific law that created CRSC did not include language providing an explicit exemption from other time limits.
What was the legal argument against applying a time limit?
The veterans’ legal representatives argued that the law Congress passed to create CRSC was a complete and comprehensive system.
Their position, as detailed in the NVLSP announcement, was that this specific law detailed all the requirements for eligibility and application. Because the CRSC statute did not mention a time limit for retroactive payments, they contended that Congress did not intend for one to be applied from a separate, more general law.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the veterans. In its 9-0 decision, the Court holds that the six-year time limit from the Barring Act does not apply to retroactive payments for Combat-Related Special Compensation. This decision reversed a lower appellate court’s ruling.
Part of the Supreme Court’s ruling includes the following on why the court decided as it did:
“The Federal Circuit erred by imposing undue requirements on Congress’s ability to confer settlement authority and by disregarding the CRSC statute’s plain text. The court’s demand for “specific language” and its alternative requirement that a statute provide a specific limitations period to displace the Barring Act are rejected. Congress need not use particular words to confer settlement authority, and, in this unique statutory regime, it is not unreasonable to think that Congress would have provided a settlement mechanism without a specific limitations period.”
What was the Court’s reasoning for its decision?
The unanimous Supreme Court opinion holds that one could not be imposed from the outside because Congress created a comprehensive means of applying for and receiving CRSC benefits and did not include a time limit within that plan.
The announcement highlighted a quote from the opinion suggesting that for a “particularly deserving” group of claimants like combat-disabled veterans, it was reasonable to conclude that “Congress wished to forgo a limitations period.”
How many veterans are affected by this ruling?
The ruling directly affects a class of over 9,000 combat-disabled veterans who had their retroactive CRSC payments capped by the government. The decision requires the government to identify all members of this class and provide them with the full back pay they are owed. According to the veterans’ legal advocates, the total amount of wrongfully withheld benefits could be hundreds of millions.
Who represented the veterans in this case?
The veterans were represented by the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), a non-profit organization that provides legal services to veterans, and the law firm Sidley Austin LLP, which contributed its services on a pro bono basis.
The legal team pursued the case through the federal court system, culminating in the Supreme Court appeal. Following the decision, representatives from both organizations issued statements characterizing the outcome as a major victory for veterans.
>Never miss a benefits update. Subscribe to the MyMilitaryBenefits Newsletter NOW.
About the author
Editor-in-Chief Joe Wallace is a 13-year veteran of the United States Air Force and a former reporter/editor for Air Force Television News and the Pentagon Channel. His freelance work includes contract work for Motorola, VALoans.com, and Credit Karma. He is co-founder of Dim Art House in Springfield, Illinois, and spends his non-writing time as an abstract painter, independent publisher, and occasional filmmaker.
