Latest news with #BarringAct
Newsweek
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Just Dropped Four Unanimous Opinions in One Day
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, delivered four unanimous opinions on Thursday, showing a united front on a range of cases. Newsweek has reached out to several legal experts for comment via email on Thursday. Why It Matters The Supreme Court currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority. During President Donald Trump's first term, he nominated conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Voting along ideological lines is part of the deterioration of the public's confidence in the nation's highest court, which has declined over the decades. Forty-seven percent of Americans expressed a favorable view, and 51 percent held an unfavorable opinion, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent of Americans viewed the court favorably, while 17 percent had an unfavorable opinion, according to the Pew Research Center. The same survey found that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say that the justices are not doing a good job of keeping their personal politics out of their decisions. Supreme Court data shows unanimous decisions are not uncommon, with 44 percent of cases decided unanimously in 2023 and 50 percent in 2022. However, in 2021, the percentage dipped down under 30 percent, the lowest in decades. What To Know On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued six decisions, including four unanimous rulings. In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Soto v. United States, Martin v. United States, and Rivers v. Guerrero, all nine justices reached the same conclusion. In A.J.T., the court ruled that "Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination context." Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion. The US Supreme Court is seen on Thursday, May 1, 2025. The US Supreme Court is seen on Thursday, May 1, 2025. Photo by Aaron Schwartz/Sipa USA/AP Images The ruling came after A.J.T., a student with epilepsy, sued her Minnesota public school over denying her request for evening instruction related to her medical condition, which resulted in fewer instruction hours than her peers. In another ruling, the court unanimously held that the six-year limitations period under the Barring Act does not apply to claims brought under the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute. The ruling came in the case of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, who sought retroactive benefits for service-related PTSD. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Georgia family can proceed with a lawsuit against the federal government after FBI agents mistakenly raided their home during a botched operation. The justices held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not shield the government from liability under the Supremacy Clause or discretionary-function exception in such cases. In a fourth decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a second habeas petition is considered "second or successive" once a district court issues final judgment on the first, even if that judgment is still on appeal. The decision in the case of Texas inmate Danny Rivers means he needed appellate approval before filing a new petition based on newly discovered evidence. What People Are Saying Attorney Patrick Jaicomo, who represents the plaintiffs in Martin v. U.S., said in a statement: "We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights." Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Ava Tharpe in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, told Reuters in a statement that the ruling is "a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the are grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision holding that these children should enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Americans with disabilities." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term typically ending in late June.
Epoch Times
30-04-2025
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Hears Compensation Claim for Former Marine With PTSD
The Supreme Court on April 28 considered if the federal government may, after six years, cut off combat-related special compensation to a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Veterans are allowed to seek retroactive, combat-related special compensation (CRSC), but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that such payments are subject to the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. 3702), which has a six-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court looked at whether the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. Section 1413), which authorizes such compensation, contains a method for settling claims that supplants the Barring Act. Settlement refers to when the government renders a final administrative determination about its liability on a claim. The petitioner, Simon A. Soto, enlisted in August 2000 in the U.S. Marine Corps, which operates within the U.S. Department of the Navy. An Iraq War veteran, Soto served in a mortuary affairs unit during his first two tours. It was his responsibility to 'search for, recover, and process the remains of war casualties,' according to his On one mission, he was traumatized when he participated in recovering 'over 300 pieces of five or seven soldiers' who were killed. Beginning in December 2005, he was treated for what was later diagnosed as PTSD. In April 2006, he was medically retired from active duty. Related Stories 1/22/2025 12/23/2024 After that, Soto was put on the temporary disability retirement list, which meant he was entitled to military retirement pay. Later, the Navy removed Soto from the list and awarded him permanent disability retirement, under which he continued to be entitled to military retirement pay, the petition said. In June 2016, Soto asked the Navy for CRSC based on his PTSD. The Navy determined that Soto's PTSD was related to combat, which qualified him for CRSC as of July 2010. This finding came even though he met the CRSC enrollment criteria as of January 2008, which was the date a law that extended CRSC to medical retirees came into force, the petition said. This led to the Navy deciding to give Soto just six years of retroactive CRSC payments, covering July 2010 to June 2016. Soto argues in the petition that he is actually entitled to about 8 1/2 years of payments, covering January 2008 to June 2016. The Navy said that the statute of limitations applies, so to qualify for full retroactive CRSC payments, a person has to file a CRSC claim within six years of a VA decision that might make a person eligible for CRSC, or by the date the person became entitled to retirement pay—whichever date is most recent. Filing later than six years after initial eligibility means the person will receive only six years' entitlement to retroactive payments, according to the petition. The petition said the federal government 'has used this six-year statute of limitations policy to pay no more than six years of retroactive CRSC to thousands of other deserving United States military combat veterans.' Soto filed a proposed class action lawsuit in federal district court in Texas in 2017. The court ruled in his favor in December 2021, finding the relevant statute 'has its own settlement mechanism because it defines eligibility for CRSC, helps explain the amount of benefits and instructs the [Department of Defense] to prescribe procedures and criteria for individuals to apply for CRSC.' The court held that the CRSC statute was 'outside the reach of the Barring Act and—by extension—its six-year statute of limitations,' the petition said. The court also determined that the government owed Soto and other veterans compensation that it wrongly withheld. A divided Federal Circuit reversed in February 2024, holding that the statute of limitations in the Barring Act 'applies because the CRSC Statute does not contain its own settlement mechanism.' During the April 28 oral But Soto argues that claims for CRSC are not subject to that time limitation because 'the CRSC statute contains its own settlement mechanism without providing its own time limit,' Flynn said. 'Dating back 200 years, claims for all kinds of military pay and benefits, including retired pay, have been settled under [the Barring Act] and its predecessors, and since 1940, those pay claims have been subject to the time bar,' she said. If the court ignores the six-year limit and rules in favor of Soto, up to six other military compensation programs might be affected. 'We're aware of no other military pay or compensation statute that opens up the department in that way,' Flynn said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how large the six programs were. 'What's the extent of the liability that the government is concerned with here?' she asked. Flynn said the death gratuity benefit, which can run to $100,000 per survivor, could be affected, as could the basic needs allowance and disability severance. Soto's attorney, Tacy Flint, said the case 'starts and ends with the text of the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute. Because that statute grants the secretary concerned [of a military department] authority to settle claims for CRSC, the Barring Act does not apply.' Chief Justice John Roberts said that if the court ruling 'is enough to get past the Barring Act based on this statute, the idea is that would sort of open the barn door, getting around a statute that is critically important to … protecting' the public Treasury. Flint said both the Uniformed Services and Reemployment Rights Act and a postal service statute do not limit when claims may be filed. Justice Samuel Alito asked why there would be an exception for CRSC decisions. 'What might have motivated Congress to think … generally, we want to have a statute of limitations for submission of claims to the government or for many other things, but in this particular situation, we don't want that?' The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in Soto v. United States by the end of June.
