October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1657

Does a missed 30-day deadline bar attorney fee claims?

A veteran seeks court fees after winning a disability case. The government argues he missed the filing deadline.

Official caption
Scarborough v. Principi
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Brian Wolfman argued for the veteran. He cited a prior case to support his position. He emphasized the government's clear error.

    The government lawyer argued for strict compliance. He cited cases enforcing time limits. He stressed the finality of the deadline.

    The veteran's lawyer referenced a specific Supreme Court case. He used it to counter the government's strict deadline argument.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether a strict time limit blocks fee requests. The veteran claims his win proves the government acted wrongly. The government insists the deadline is absolute.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 23, 2004.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The veteran wants the court to award his lawyer fees. He argues his win proves the government acted unreasonably.

The government wants the court to deny the fee request. It argues the veteran missed the strict 30-day filing deadline.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The veteran argues his victory shows the government made a clear error. He believes this justifies paying his legal costs.

The government argues the law sets a strict 30-day limit. It claims missing this deadline automatically bars fee recovery.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted. He signaled the end of the oral argument session.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines how strictly courts enforce fee deadlines. It affects whether lawyers get paid for winning government cases. It shapes the cost of challenging federal agencies.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON