Scarborough v. Principi
The Court ruled that a veteran's attorney could fix a legal-fee application by adding a missing statement after the filing deadline had passed, because the statement related back to the application he filed on time.
The decision makes it easier for people who win lawsuits against the federal government to collect attorney's fees, by treating a late-added technical statement as part of the original, timely filing rather than a fatal defect.
How it got here: The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed the fee application as untimely, the Federal Circuit affirmed twice, and Scarborough appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Randall Scarborough, a Navy veteran, won a disability benefits case against the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under a federal fee-shifting law, he could recover attorney's fees unless the government proved its position was justified. His lawyer filed a timely fee request but initially forgot to include a required sentence stating the government's position was not substantially justified, and only added it after fixing the mistake when the government objected.
The question before the Court
If a veteran's lawyer files a timely request for legal fees but forgets to say the government's case wasn't justified, can he add that claim after the deadline passes?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that Scarborough's lawyer could add the missing "not substantially justified" statement after the 30-day deadline, because it related back to the fee application he had already filed on time. The Court treated the missing statement like a signature or verification requirement it had previously allowed people to fix late, since it exists mainly to discourage careless fee requests rather than to give the government essential information it wouldn't otherwise have.
The Court rejected the government's argument that its immunity from paying fees must be read so strictly that any missing detail, even a brief allegation, dooms the whole application. Because the fee law lets people sue the government much as they would in ordinary litigation, the Court found it appropriate to apply the same flexible amendment rules that would apply in a normal lawsuit between private parties.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
People who successfully sue federal agencies — veterans seeking benefits, Social Security claimants, small businesses, and others — can now fix a narrow but common paperwork slip in fee applications without losing their right to recover attorney's fees, as long as they filed on time in the first place and the correction is prompt.
What changes now
The case goes back to the Federal Circuit and then to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, where Scarborough's fee application — now including the required allegation — can be considered on the merits, meaning the government will have a chance to argue its position was in fact justified. The ruling is a final decision on the timing question but does not resolve whether Scarborough ultimately gets the fees.
What this does not decide
The Court left open whether the 30-day deadline even applies to the "not substantially justified" allegation at all, and whether an applicant could similarly amend after the deadline to fix a missing showing of prevailing-party status, eligibility, or the amount sought — those questions were not decided here.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Ginsburg (author).
Dissent (1). Justice Thomas (author).
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas argued the 30-day deadline does apply to the substantial-justification allegation because the statute's structure links it to the earlier timing requirement. He reasoned that because the fee-shifting law waives the government's sovereign immunity, any ambiguity must be read narrowly in the government's favor, and courts cannot import a relation-back doctrine the statute never mentions. He also argued the majority stretched the earlier Irwin decision beyond its proper limits, since Irwin applied only where private lawsuits have a real equivalent, and there is no private-lawsuit equivalent to fee awards against the government. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first clarified that the 30-day fee-filing deadline is a claims-processing rule, not a limit on the court's subject-matter jurisdiction (its basic power to hear the case), so missing part of it does not automatically doom the whole request.
- The Court explained that the requirement to allege the government's position was 'not substantially justified' is merely a pleading requirement, not something the applicant has to prove — the government bears the actual burden of proving its position was justified.
- The Court compared this allegation to a signature requirement and a verification requirement it had excused in two earlier cases (Becker and Edelman), reasoning that all three serve to discourage careless litigation rather than to give the government essential notice.
- Applying the 'relation-back' doctrine — the idea that a later amendment can be treated as if filed on the original date because it grows out of the same filing — the Court found the added allegation arose from the same fee request Scarborough had already filed on time.
- The Court rejected the government's argument that any waiver of the government's immunity from paying fees must be read narrowly and applied word-for-word, noting that when Congress lets people sue the government the same way they sue private parties, ordinary procedural flexibility can still apply.
- The Court also noted the government had shown no unfair harm from allowing the late addition, and that the law already has a safeguard letting courts deny fees when 'special circumstances' make an award unjust.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs (498 U. S. 89)
Relied on to hold that ordinary procedural rules, like relation-back, can apply to lawsuits against the government.
Reaffirms Edelman v. Lynchburg College (535 U. S. 106)
Used as precedent for allowing a late-added required statement to relate back to a timely filing.
Reaffirms Becker v. Montgomery (532 U. S. 757)
Cited approvingly for allowing a missing signature to be added after a filing deadline without voiding the appeal.