This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether the Vaccine Act’s attorneys’ fees provision applies to petitions that are denied as untimely.
Section 15(e)(1) of the Vaccine Act allows an award of attorneys’ fees when a petition is filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis, regardless of the petition’s ultimate outcome.
Over the past 25 years the vaccine injury program has paid roughly $160 million in attorneys’ fees to both winners and losers, representing about 6 percent of total compensation paid.
Background and question before the Court
According to Benjamin J. Horwich, the attorneys’‑fees provision looks to the judgment at the end of a case, not to the filing deadline, and therefore may apply even when a petition is filed late.
According to Benjamin J. Horwich, petitioner argues that the Vaccine Act does not provide for an award of attorneys’ fees when a petition is filed after the statutory deadline.
Respondent contends that Section 15(e)(1) makes any petition eligible for fees if it is filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis, even when the petition is denied.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Secretary of Health and Human Services)
According to Benjamin J. Horwich, the petitioner maintains that the Vaccine Act does not authorize an award of attorneys’ fees when a petition is filed after the statutory deadline.
According to Benjamin J. Horwich, the petitioner argues that the fee provision looks to the judgment at the end of the case and therefore does not apply to the filing deadline.
Respondent (Melissa Cloer)
The respondent contends that Section 15(e)(1) makes any petition eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees if it is filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis, regardless of timeliness.
According to Government, the respondent points to the government’s brief, which frames the fee eligibility criteria in terms of good faith and reasonable basis.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked Mr. Horwich to elaborate on his argument regarding the fee provision.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired about other provisions of the Act that refer to a petition’s filing.
Justice Kagan asked about the reporting‑to‑Congress provision and whether it occurs at the beginning, middle, or end of a case.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned whether filing means different things under different provisions of the Act.
Justice Scalia asked whether the attorneys’‑fees provision, which looks to the end of the case, should be construed to apply to untimely filings.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor suggested that the argument sounded jurisdictional and noted the government’s concession that the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito presented an example where a timely petition failed on the merits but still raised the issue of fee eligibility.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor expressed confusion about whether an award of attorneys’ fees on a good‑faith basis depends on the ultimate merits of the vaccine injury claim.
Justice Alito asked how often claims are rejected solely on timeliness grounds.
Justice Kagan asked why untimely petitions usually arise, suggesting they often involve issues such as reporting requirements.
- [1] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 7
- [4] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 8
- [5] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 12
- [6] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 10
- [7] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 18
- [8] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 20
- [9] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 39
- [10] 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdf, p. 38
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The program has already paid substantial attorneys’ fees—about $160 million over 25 years—showing the monetary stakes involved in the interpretation of the fee provision.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 153d8d276e2b0afd288e-r1-1d66524684df5116.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.