October Term 2015 · Docket 14-916
Does the Veterans Act require the VA to prioritize veteran-owned firms for new orders?
Kingdomware argues the VA must prioritize veteran-owned firms for new orders. The government says the VA can use existing contracts.
Verified source milestones
- — 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 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Saunders argued the 2006 Veterans Act requires prioritizing veteran-owned firms. He stated this applies before awarding contracts to other suppliers.
Mr. Tripp argued the mandate applies to wholly new contracts. He stated it does not apply to orders under old contracts.
procedural_posture
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 46-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 46-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-42
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on federal procurement rules. Kingdomware seeks to enforce a statutory preference. The government defends its current contracting method.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 22, 2016.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
Kingdomware wants the Court to order the VA to prioritize veteran-owned firms for new orders.
The government wants the Court to allow the VA to place orders under existing contracts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
What each side says
Kingdomware argues the 2006 Veterans Act mandates prioritizing veteran-owned firms before other suppliers.
The government argues the mandate applies only to wholly new contracts, not existing orders.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked about the specific contract amount.
Justice Sotomayor asked if the client remains a Federal Supply Schedule vendor. She also asked about stipulated costs and database capabilities. She questioned if ruling for Kingdomware would eliminate the Federal Supply Schedule system. Justice Alito asked what relief is consistent with the Tucker Act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 46-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 46-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-42
Why it matters
This case determines how the VA awards contracts. It affects veteran-owned businesses seeking federal work. It shapes the scope of the Federal Supply Schedule system.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 46-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 46-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 52-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 52-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-42
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.