Soto v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Soto v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Courtās short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Soto v. United States.
In Soto v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether the CRSC statute displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period for claims against the government. The Court found that the CRSC statute provides a unique, self-contained compensation scheme that authorizes the Secretary to determine both the validity of claims and the amount due, thus creating a separate settlement mechanism. This decision reversed the Federal Circuit's ruling.
Holding
The single most important ābottom lineā of what the Court decided in Soto v. United States.
The Court held that the CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Soto v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Soto v. United States
The case involves the interpretation of statutory authority and the displacement of default administrative procedures by a specific statute, which is central to the holding.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Soto v. United States
The Court reviews and invalidates the Federal Circuit's interpretation of the CRSC statute, exercising its power of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Soto v. United States
The case discusses the procedural mechanisms for settling claims against the government, implicating procedural due process considerations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The statute establishes a unique, self-contained, comprehensive compensation scheme that authorizes the Secretary concerned to determine both the validity of CRSC claims and the amount due on them.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Soto v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
The CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period.
Congress need not use particular words to confer settlement authority.
The statute establishes a unique, self-contained, comprehensive compensation scheme.
