October Term 2012 · Docket 12-236

Does the Vaccine Act allow fees for late petitions?

The dispute centers on whether the Vaccine Act permits attorneys to collect fees when a court dismisses a claim for filing too late.

Official caption: Sebelius v. Cloer
Latest argument session: 2013-03-19
Latest official Court activity: 2013-03-19
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — 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.

Argument 1 · 2013-03-19

What happened at the argument
The government argued that the Vaccine Act does not provide for an award of attorneys' fees on a petition that is denied as untimely.
the side that brought the case argued that Section 15(e)(1) makes any petition filed under Section 11 eligible for fees, even if denied, provided two conditions are met.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the parties file anything in the Federal Register.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the side that brought the case's conclusion is that the deadline is not jurisdictional. He later asked if the Court should say a deadline is jurisdictional if it sounds that way to secure a win. Justice Kagan asked if the Department subtracts untimely petitions from its congressional reports. Justice Sotomayor noted the government concedes the deadline is not jurisdictional.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 25-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 25-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of the Vaccine Act fee provision. The government argues the statute bars fees for untimely filings. the side that brought the case argues the statute allows fees even when a court denies a late claim.