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 Supreme Court held that §5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Background and question before the Court
The case concerns the effective date of a veteran’s disability compensation award.
Petitioner Adolfo Arellano argued that the award’s effective date should be governed by §5110(b)(1), which makes the effective date the day after discharge if the application is filed within one year.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs argued that §5110(b)(1) is not a statute of limitations and that any presumption of equitable tolling is rebutted by the statutory text and structure.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Adolfo Arellano)
According to Adolfo Arellano, arellano argued that §5110(b)(1) should control the effective date because its plain text contains no language that defeats the presumption of equitable tolling.
According to Arellano, he further contended that the unadorned text of §5110(b)(1) lacks technical language that would rebut the equitable‑tolling presumption.
Respondent (Secretary of Veterans Affairs)
According to Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary argued that §5110(b)(1) is not a statute of limitations and that any equitable‑tolling presumption is displaced by the statutory text and structure.
According to Respondent, the Respondent asserted that the agency must apply any tolling only if supported by substantial evidence and that an arbitrary‑and‑capricious finding would be inappropriate.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the case: “We’ll hear argument next in Case 21‑432, Arellano versus McDonough.”
Justice Jackson asked whether the issue was a statute of limitations and whether equitable tolling applied.
Justice Jackson further asked whether the agency would apply the statute as written and then refer the matter to the Veterans Court for equitable tolling.
Justice Sotomayor asked what other deadlines the parties thought were at issue.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether practical problems and congressional intent made equitable tolling implausible.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the statute required filing.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan questioned the Irwin presumption, noting that the first point made by counsel was that it does not apply at all.
Petitioner counsel James R. Barney argued that the subsections the Secretary points to do not relate to service‑connected disability compensation, the focus of §5110(b)(1).
According to James R. Barney, barney further argued that the Secretary’s reliance on equitable exceptions elsewhere actually strengthens the presumption of equitable tolling for §5110(b)(1).
The Court noted that most deadlines in civil litigation are tollable.
The Court also observed that there has not been a floodgate problem with people seeking equitable tolling in the nation’s courts.
- [1] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 4
- [2] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 8
- [3] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 18
- [4] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 20
- [5] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 21
- [6] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 43
- [7] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 45
- [8] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 5
- [9] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 6
- [10] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 23
- [11] df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdf, p. 23
What the Court decided
The Court held that §5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that the statutory provision governing the effective date of disability compensation does not allow veterans to rely on equitable tolling to overcome missed filing deadlines.
Because most civil‑litigation deadlines are generally tollable, this ruling signals that the specific language of §5110(b)(1) overrides the general presumption in this context.
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.
- 69b74a57b254e38296d2-r1-a9cac9ed25211c81.pdfopinion
- df023c05c6112edd355d-r1-5f4a9108d72de000.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.