A Marine’s Right to Be Heard: Why the Supreme Court Must Consider Fairness in Veteran Compensation Cases
The Story of Simon Soto
Simon Soto is a Marine who served in one of the toughest jobs imaginable—recovering and identifying the remains of fallen service members in Iraq. After returning home, he struggled with PTSD and was medically retired in 2006.
Years later, he learned he qualified for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC)—a benefit Congress created to support veterans whose injuries are tied to combat. But his claim was denied. Why? Because he applied more than six years after retirement.
That’s the heart of Soto v. United States, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Fairness Question
Under a law called the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 2501), there’s a six-year deadline to file certain claims for money against the federal government. But CRSC is not a typical lawsuit—it’s a benefit owed to combat-wounded veterans. So the big legal question is:
Does this six-year rule apply to CRSC?
And more importantly:
Is it fair to deny benefits to veterans who were too traumatized—or unaware—to apply on time?
“Deadlines have their place in the law,” says David P. Sheldon, founding attorney of the firm.
“But when those deadlines deny justice to veterans suffering invisible wounds, the law must make room for fairness.”
Why SCOTUS Is Listening—and What Came Before
The Supreme Court recently ruled in Arellano v. McDonough (2023) that equitable tolling does not apply to certain veterans’ disability benefits. That decision upheld a one-year filing deadline, emphasizing that Congress had already written clear limits into the law.
But Soto is different.
Soto argues that his claim falls under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, a law that provides CRSC and its own process for approval—meaning it may not be governed by the Tucker Act’s six-year limit at all.
And that distinction could make all the difference.
Other Cases That Matter
- In Irwin v. VA (1990), the Court held that time limits in lawsuits against the government can be extended in special situations—like illness or lack of access.
- In Menominee Tribe v. U.S. (2016), the Court clarified that equitable tolling requires both diligence and extraordinary circumstances.
- In Bailey v. West (1998), the Federal Circuit emphasized a “sympathetic reading” standard for veterans’ claims—highlighting the need for flexibility in interpreting rules.
What’s at Stake
If the Court rules against Simon Soto, it could shut out thousands of other veterans whose claims were late—but valid. If it rules for him, it will open a path for those who were unaware, misled, or too mentally unwell to act in time.
According to attorney David Sheldon, “this isn’t just about one Marine. It’s about whether the legal system honors the sacrifices made by all service members and whether the clock should ever run out on justice.”
About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a nationally recognized law firm focused on federal and military law. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees across the country, advocating for justice in matters of discharge upgrades, medical retirements, courts-martial, and benefits appeals. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.
Legal Disclaimer:
This opinion is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. If you are a service member or veteran facing a legal issue, consult with an attorney who specializes in military or federal law.
Legal References & Sources
Combat-Related Special Compensation (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)
Tucker Act Statute of Limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501)
Arellano v. McDonough (2023) – Supreme Court Opinion (PDF)
Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1990)
Menominee Tribe v. United States (2016)
Bailey v. West (1998) – Case Text
DOJ Brief in Soto v. United States (Feb 2025)