PRELIMINARY PRINT

Volume 598 U. S. Part 1 Pages 1–14

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT January 23, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, [email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors. CASES ADJUDGED IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT

OCTOBER TERM, 2022

ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit Page Proof No. 21–432. Pending Argued October Publication 4, 2022—Decided January 23, 2023 This case concerns the effective date of an award of disability compensa- tion to a veteran of the United States military. Approximately 30 years after Adolfo Arellano's honorable discharge from the Navy, Arellano ap- plied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability compen- sation based on his psychiatric disorders. A VA regional offce granted Arellano service-connected disability benefts after fnding that his dis- orders resulted from trauma that he suffered while serving on an air- craft carrier. Applying the default rule in 38 U. S. C. § 5110(a)(1), the VA assigned an effective date of June 3, 2011—the day that the agency received his claim—to Arellano's disability award. Arellano appealed, arguing that his award's effective date should be governed by an excep- tion in § 5110(b)(1), which makes “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation . . . the day following the date of the veteran's discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release.” Alleging that he had been too ill to know that he could apply for disability benefts, Arellano main- tained that this exception's 1-year grace period should be equit- ably tolled to make his award effective on or about the day after his discharge from military service in 1981. The VA's Board of Veter- ans' Appeals denied Arellano's request, and the Court of Appeals 1 2 ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH

Syllabus

for Veterans Claims affrmed. The Federal Circuit affrmed the judgment. Held: Section 5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. Pp. 6–14. (a) Equitable tolling “effectively extends an otherwise discrete limita- tions period set by Congress” when a litigant diligently pursues his rights but extraordinary circumstances prevent him from bringing a timely action. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U. S. 1, 10. The Court presumes that federal statutes of limitations are subject to equitable tolling. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95– 96. But this presumption is rebutted if equitable tolling is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Here, the Secretary of the VA argues that § 5110(b)(1) is not a statute of limitations and that, even if it were, any applicable presumption in favor of equitable tolling is rebutted by the statutory text and structure. The Court need not decide whether § 5110(b)(1) is a statute of limitations. Even assuming that the excep- tion sets a limitations period, there exists “good reason to believe that Congress did not want the equitable tolling doctrine to apply.” United States v. Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347, 350. Section 5110(b)(1) operates as a limited exception to § 5110(a)(1)'s de- fault rule, which states that “the effective date of an award . . . shall be Page Proof Pending Publication fxed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.” The default rule applies “[u]nless specifcally provided otherwise in this chapter”—a clause indi- cating that Congress enumerated an exhaustive list of exceptions, with each confned to its specifc terms. According to the terms of the excep- tion in § 5110(b)(1), “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compen- sation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of the veteran's discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release.” Equitably tolling this provi- sion would depart from the terms that Congress “specifcally pro- vided.” § 5110(a)(1). The structure of § 5110—which sets out 16 exceptions that explain when various types of benefts qualify for an effective date earlier than the default—reinforces Congress's choice to set effective dates solely as prescribed in the text. These exceptions do not operate simply as time constraints, but also as substantive limitations on the amount of recov- ery due, a structure strongly indicating that “Congress did not intend courts to read other unmentioned, open-ended, `equitable' exceptions into the statute that it wrote.” Brockamp, 519 U. S., at 352. That many of the specifc exceptions refect equitable considerations height- ens the structural inference, as does the fact that Congress generally capped retroactive benefts at roughly one year. When, as here, Con- Cite as: 598 U. S. 1 (2023) 3

Syllabus

gress has already considered equitable concerns and limited the relief available, “additional equitable tolling would be unwarranted.” United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38, 48–49. Although hard and fast limits on retroactive benefts can create harsh results, Congress has the power to choose between rules, which prioritize effciency and predictability, and standards, which prioritize optimal results in individual cases. Cf. Brockamp, 519 U. S., at 352–353. Congress opted for rules in this stat- utory scheme, and an equitable extension of § 5110(b)(1)'s 1-year grace period would disrupt that choice. Pp. 6–12. (b) Arellano sees § 5110(b)(1) as a simple time limit and therefore a classic case for equitable tolling. But § 5110(b)(1) cannot be understood independently of § 5110(a)(1), which makes the date of claim receipt the effective date “[u]nless specifcally provided otherwise in this chapter.” This language is an instruction to attend to specifcally enacted language to the exclusion of general, unenacted carveouts. Arellano relies on a separate exception in § 5110(b)(4)—which makes disability pension bene- fts retroactive in certain cases where permanent and total disability pre- vents a veteran from applying for an award at the time of disability onset—to argue that Congress wanted traditional principles of equitable tolling to apply to § 5110(b)(1). To the contrary, § 5110(b)(4) demon- strates that Congress had on its radar the possibility that disability could Page Proof Pending Publication delay an application for benefts and still Congress did not explicitly ac- count for that possibility in § 5110(b)(1). Young v. United States, 535 U. S. 43, distinguished. Finally, Arellano contends that the nature of the subject matter—veterans' benefts—counsels in favor of tolling because providing benefts to veterans is a context in which individualized equities are paramount. But the nature of the subject matter cannot overcome statutory text and structure that foreclose equitable tolling. Pp. 12–14. 1 F. 4th 1059, affrmed.

Barrett, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

James R. Barney argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Kelly S. Horn. Sopan Joshi argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Prelogar, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Boynton, and Deputy Solicitor General Stewart.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the Constitutional Accountability Center by Elizabeth B. Wydra and Brianne J. Gorod; for Disabled American Veterans et al. by Amy F. Odom, Robert V. Chisholm, 4 ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH

Opinion of the Court

Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the effective date of an award of dis- ability compensation to a veteran of the United States mili- tary. The governing statute provides that the effective date of the award “shall not be earlier” than the day on which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) receives the veteran's application for benefts. But the statute specifes 16 excep- tions, one of which is relevant here: If the VA receives the application within a year of the veteran's discharge, the ef- fective date is the day after the veteran's discharge. We must decide whether this exception is subject to equitable tolling, a doctrine that would allow some applications fled outside the 1-year period to qualify for the “day after dis- charge” effective date. We hold that the provision cannot be equitably tolled. I A Page Proof The United Pending States offers Publication benefts to any veteran who suf- fers a service-connected disability. 38 U. S. C. §§ 1110, 1131. A veteran seeking these benefts must fle a claim with the VA. § 5101(a)(1)(A). “A regional offce of the VA then de- termines whether the veteran satisfes all legal prerequi- sites, including the requirement that military service caused or aggravated the disability.” George v. McDonough, 596 U. S. –––, ––– – ––– (2022). If the regional offce grants the application, it assigns an “effective date” to the award, and payments begin the month after that date. §§ 5110(a)(1),

and Zachary Stolz; and for Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc., et al. by Mel- anie L. Bostwick, Cesar A. Lopez-Morales, John B. Wells, and Harvey Weiner. Briefs of amici curiae were fled for Edgewood Veterans et al. by Liam J. Montgomery, Charles L. McCloud, Diane Boyd Rauber, William A. Rivera, Leonard J. Selfon, and Linda E. Blauhut; for the Federal Circuit Bar Association by Nicholas F. Giove, Jonathan A. Herstoff, and Aakruti G. Vakharia; and for the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium by Angela K. Drake. Cite as: 598 U. S. 1 (2023) 5

Opinion of the Court

5111(a)(1). If the effective date precedes the date on which the VA received the claim, the veteran receives retroactive benefts. Section 5110 dictates how this date is calculated. The de- fault rule is that “the effective date of an award . . . shall be fxed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.” § 5110(a)(1). This rule applies “[u]nless specifcally provided otherwise in this chapter.” Ibid. Sixteen exceptions in § 5110 “provid[e] otherwise,” including one specifying that “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of the veteran's discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release. ” § 5110(b)(1). On its face, this exception allows up to one year of retroactive benefts. But if the VA can treat an ap- plication fled more than one year after discharge as if it had been fled within the statutory window, a veteran could Page Proof Pending Publication potentially recover decades' worth of retroactive payments.

B Adolfo Arellano served in the Navy from 1977 until his honorable discharge in 1981. Approximately 30 years later, the VA received Arellano's application for disability compen- sation based on his psychiatric disorders. A VA regional offce found that Arellano's disorders resulted from trauma that he suffered while serving on an aircraft carrier that collided with another ship. So the regional offce granted Arellano benefts for his service-connected disabilities— schizoaffective disorder bipolar type with posttraumatic stress disorder. It assigned an effective date of June 3, 2011, the day that the VA received his claim. Arellano appealed the regional offce's decision to the VA's Board of Veterans' Appeals. He acknowledged that he did not submit an application for benefts until June 2011. But he argued that the regional offce should have equitably 6 ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH

Opinion of the Court

tolled § 5110(b)(1)'s 1-year timeline to make his award effec- tive as of the day after his discharge from service in 1981 or, at the latest, January 1, 1982. In support of equitable toll- ing, Arellano alleged that he had been too ill to know that he could apply for service-connected disability benefts. The Board denied Arellano's request for equitable tolling, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affrmed. The en banc Federal Circuit affrmed the judgment unani- mously but divided equally on the supporting rationale. Half the court, adhering to Circuit precedent, maintained that § 5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. 1 F. 4th 1059, 1086 (2021) (Chen, J., concurring in judgment); see An- drews v. Principi, 351 F. 3d 1134 (2003). The other half, rejecting Circuit precedent, reasoned that § 5110(b)(1) is sub- ject to equitable tolling but that tolling was unwarranted on the facts of Arellano's case. 1 F. 4th, at 1099 (Dyk, J., con- curring in judgment). We granted certiorari to resolve which side had the better Page Proof Pending Publication interpretation of the statute. 595 U. S. ––– (2022).

II Equitable tolling “effectively extends an otherwise dis- crete limitations period set by Congress.” Lozano v. Mon- toya Alvarez, 572 U. S. 1, 10 (2014). In practice, it “pauses the running of, or `tolls,' a statute of limitations when a liti- gant has pursued his rights diligently but some extraor- dinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely action.” Ibid. The doctrine “is a traditional feature of American jurisprudence and a background principle against which Congress drafts limitations periods.” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. –––, ––– (2022). Consistent with this jurisprudential backdrop, we presume that federal stat- utes of limitations are subject to equitable tolling. Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95–96 (1990). The Irwin presumption, however, is just that—a presump- tion. It can be rebutted, and if equitable tolling is inconsist- Cite as: 598 U. S. 1 (2023) 7

Opinion of the Court

ent with the statutory scheme, courts cannot stop the clock for even the most deserving plaintiff. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. 130, 137–138 (2008); United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38, 48–49 (1998). The Secretary of Veterans Affairs advances two reasons why § 5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. The frst would head tolling off at the pass: He argues that § 5110(b)(1) is not a statute of limitations, so the presumption is wholly inapplicable. See Lozano, 572 U. S., at 13–14 (“[W]e have only applied” Irwin's presumption “to statutes of limita- tions”). Rather than extinguishing a tardy claim (the func- tion of a statute of limitations), § 5110(b)(1) caps the award for a successful claim (a different function). Brief for Re- spondent 18–22. That it does so with reference to the time of fling, the Secretary says, does not convert it into a statute of limitations. Id., at 21. In any event, the Secretary adds, equitable tolling is at odds with the statutory text and struc- ture—so even assuming that § 5110(b)(1) sets a limitations Page Proof Pending Publication period, the presumption is rebutted. We need not address the Secretary's frst argument be- cause the second is straightforward. The presumption is re- butted if “there [is] good reason to believe that Congress did not want the equitable tolling doctrine to apply.” United States v. Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347, 350 (1997). In this case, there is very good reason to draw that conclusion. Section 5110 contains detailed instructions for when a veteran's claim for benefts may enjoy an effective date earlier than the one provided by the default rule. It would be inconsist- ent with this comprehensive scheme for an adjudicator to extend effective dates still further through the doctrine of equitable tolling.1

1 Equitable tolling, a judicial doctrine, is typically applied by courts. See Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S. 145, 158–159 (2013). In this case, Arellano posits that the VA would apply the doctrine in the frst instance. Reply Brief 18–19; Tr. of Oral Arg. 16–17. The Secretary counters that the doctrine is not presumptively available to 8 ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH

Opinion of the Court

A Start with the text. Section 5110(b)(1) operates as a lim- ited exception to § 5110(a)(1)'s default rule, which states that “the effective date of an award . . . shall be fxed in accord- ance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.” The default applies “[u]nless specifcally provided otherwise in this chapter”—a clause indicating that Congress enumerated an exhaustive list of exceptions, with each confned to its specifc terms. § 5110(a)(1). According to the terms of the exception in § 5110(b)(1), “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of the veteran's discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release.” Equitably tolling this provision would depart from the terms that Congress “specifically provided. ” § 5110(a)(1). Page Proof Pending Publication The structure of § 5110 reinforces Congress's choice to set effective dates solely as prescribed in the text. The statute sets out detailed instructions that explain when various types of benefts qualify for an effective date earlier than the default. There are 16 such exceptions—and equitable tolling is not on the list. See §§ 5110(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(3), (b)(4)(A), (c), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f), (g), (h), (i), ( j), (k), (l), (n). Notably, these exceptions do not operate simply as time con- straints, but also as substantive limitations on the amount of recovery due. See, e. g., § 5110(g) (“In no event shall [an] award or increase [under this paragraph] be retroactive for more than one year from the date of application therefor or the date of administrative determination of entitlement,

agencies because they possess no equitable power unless Congress grants it to them—which, he says, Congress has not done here. Brief for Re- spondent 32–35. We need not settle this dispute. Our conclusion that the presumption is rebutted means that no adjudicator, whether an agency or a court, may equitably toll the effective date. Cite as: 598 U. S. 1 (2023) 9

Opinion of the Court

whichever is earlier”). We stated in Brockamp that an “ex- plicit listing of exceptions” in a statute containing “detail” and describing “not only procedural limitations, but also sub- stantive limitations on the amount of recovery” strongly in- dicated that “Congress did not intend courts to read other unmentioned, open-ended, `equitable' exceptions into the statute that it wrote.” 519 U. S., at 352. So too here. If Congress wanted the VA to adjust a claimant's entitlement to retroactive benefts based on unmentioned equitable fac- tors, it is diffcult to see why it spelled out a long list of situations in which a claimant is entitled to adjustment— and instructed the VA to stick to the exceptions “specifcally provided.” § 5110(a)(1). That many of the specifc exceptions refect equitable con- siderations heightens the structural inference. Several, in- cluding § 5110(b)(1), apply when the event triggering the entitlement to benefts is disability or death—both circum- Page Proof Pending Publication stances in which prompt fling could be challenging for a vet- eran or her survivors. See §§ 5110(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4)(A), (d); cf. Lozano, 572 U. S., at 10 (noting that equitable tolling may be appropriate when a person diligently pursues her rights but an “extraordinary circumstance prevents [her] from bringing a timely action”). One permits an earlier effective date for the award of benefts to a veteran's child, a claimant typically dependent on others for prompt fling. § 5110(e)(1). Still others permit retroactive benefts when facts change or new evidence emerges. See § 5110(h) (permitting retro- active benefts when actual income would increase a pen- sion that had been awarded based on anticipated income); § 5110(i) (permitting retroactive benefts when “any disal- lowed claim is readjudicated and thereafter allowed on the basis of new and relevant evidence resulting from the correction of ” certain military records). Yet despite its at- tention to fairness, Congress did not throw the door wide open in these circumstances or any other. In all but one 10 ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH

Opinion of the Court

instance, Congress capped retroactive benefts at roughly one year.2 This pattern matters. That Congress accounted for equi- table factors in setting effective dates strongly suggests that it did not expect an adjudicator to add a broader range of equitable factors to the mix. And its decision to consist- ently cap retroactive benefts strongly suggests that it did not expect open-ended tolling to dramatically increase the size of an award. When Congress has already considered equitable concerns and limited the relief available, “addi- tional equitable tolling would be unwarranted.” Beggerly, 524 U. S., at 48–49. Section 5110(b)(4), another disability-related exception to the default rule, illustrates the point. Recall that § 5110(b)(1), the exception at issue here, adjusts the effective date of disability compensation to the day after a veteran's discharge from the military, so long as the VA receives the claim within one year of discharge. Arellano contends that Page Proof Pending Publication his claim, fled 30 years after discharge, should relate back to the date of discharge because his disability prevented him

2 Thirteen of the exceptions, including § 5110(b)(1), allow an effective date up to one year before the application-receipt date. See, e. g., § 5110(b)(3) (“The effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if application is received within one year from such date” (emphasis added)). Two exceptions contemplate the possibility that the effective date of an award might stretch up to one day short of 13 months before the application-receipt date. See §§ 5110(d) (“The effec- tive date of an award of death compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or death pension for which application is received within one year from the date of death shall be the frst day of the month in which the death occurred”), (e)(1). The only one offering more than 13 months of retroactive benefts concerns the death of an active-duty serv- icemember. This provision permits an award of death compensation to be effective as of the month of death, no matter how long ago the death occurred—but still, retroactive benefts are permitted only if the VA re- ceives the application within one year of the military's entry of a report or fnding of the servicemember's death. § 5110( j). Cite as: 598 U. S. 1 (2023) 11

Opinion of the Court

from fling earlier than he did. But § 5110(b)(4), which ap- plies to disability pensions rather than disability compensa- tion, expressly accounts for this very concern: It makes pen- sion benefts retroactive to the date of permanent and total disability if the disability prevented the veteran from apply- ing for an award at the time of onset. §§ 5110(b)(4)(A), (B). The possibility that disability could cause delay was there- fore on Congress's radar; still, Congress did not explicitly account for it in § 5110(b)(1). Moreover, while Arellano posits an open-ended grace period for § 5110(b)(1), § 5110(b) (4)(A) imposes a restrictive one: It applies only “if the vet- eran applies for a retroactive award within one year” of “the date on which the veteran became permanently and totally disabled.” Why would Congress allow an unlimited grace period for an equitable concern unmentioned in § 5110(b)(1) when it established a limited grace period for the same con- cern explicitly mentioned in § 5110(b)(4)? Tolling § 5110(b)(1) Page Proof Pending Publication would single it out for special treatment; enforcing its terms keeps it consistent with the statutory scheme. The most compelling argument for equitable tolling is that hard and fast limits on retroactive benefts can create harsh results. The statutory default ties the start of benefts to the application-receipt date, a choice that incentivizes promptness and disfavors retroactive awards. The excep- tions granting a 1-year grace period soften that choice in specifed circumstances, yet there are situations in which eq- uity's fexible, open-ended approach would be more generous to a deserving claimant. With this in mind, Congress could have designed a scheme that allowed adjudicators to maxi- mize fairness in every case. But Congress has the power to choose between rules, which prioritize effciency and predict- ability, and standards, which prioritize optimal results in in- dividual cases. Cf. Brockamp, 519 U. S., at 352–353 (observ- ing that “Congress decided to pay the price of occasional unfairness in individual cases . . . in order to maintain a more workable tax enforcement system”). Congress opted for 12 ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH

Opinion of the Court

rules in this statutory scheme, and an equitable extension of § 5110(b)(1)'s 1-year grace period would disrupt that choice.

B Arellano contests all of this. Laser focused on § 5110(b)(1), he argues that the provision's unadorned text contains none of the specifc, technical language that might otherwise rebut the presumption of equitable tolling. In ad- dition, he emphasizes that there are “zero express exceptions to § 5110(b)(1)'s one-year clock,” which he describes as “fatal” to the Secretary's position. Reply Brief 14. As Arellano sees it, § 5110(b)(1) is a simple time limit and therefore a classic case for equitable tolling. If § 5110(b)(1) stood alone, there might be something to Arellano's argument. (Again, assuming that § 5110(b)(1) is a limitations period to which the Irwin presumption ap- plies.) But § 5110(b)(1) cannot be understood independently Page Proof Pending Publication of § 5110(a)(1), which makes the date of receipt the effective date “[u]nless specifcally provided otherwise in this chap- ter.” Arellano insists that the Secretary overreads “unless” by treating it as a signal that the enacted exceptions are exclusive. Brief for Petitioner 31–32. But the clause says more than “unless”—it says that the default applies “[u]n- less specifcally provided otherwise.” § 5110(a)(1) (emphasis added). That is an instruction to attend to specifcally enacted language to the exclusion of general, unenacted carveouts. While Arellano claims to seek an equitable ex- ception to a general rule, he actually seeks an equitable ex- ception to an exception to a general rule. Structurally, that is a heavy lift. Moreover, § 5110(b)(1) is nestled within a list of 15 other exceptions to § 5110(a)(1)'s default rule, and, as we have already explained, the presence of this detailed, lengthy list raises the inference that the enumerated excep- tions are exclusive. Arellano also resists the proposition that the express ac- counting for disability-caused delay in § 5110(b)(4) hurts his Cite as: 598 U. S. 1 (2023) 13

Opinion of the Court

case. On the contrary, he insists that it works in his favor. Citing Young v. United States, 535 U. S. 43 (2002), he main- tains that an express tolling provision does not displace the presumption of tolling but rather demonstrates that a stat- ute incorporates traditional equitable principles. Brief for Petitioner 37–38. According to Arellano, Congress's silence in § 5110(b)(1) merely shows that it wanted those traditional principles to apply at full strength. Ibid.; Reply Brief 19–20. We disagree. Section 5110(b)(4) does not help Arellano; for the reasons we have already explained, it illustrates why equitably tolling § 5110(b)(1) is incongruent with the statu- tory scheme. Young is inapposite. There, we concluded that an “express tolling provision” for a time limit in a bank- ruptcy statute supported equitable tolling of a different time limit in the same statute. 535 U. S., at 53. But that was largely because the express tolling provision authorized toll- Page Proof Pending Publication ing where equity would not otherwise have permitted it. Ibid. As a result, we interpreted the express tolling provi- sion to “supplemen[t] rather than displac[e] principles of equi- table tolling.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted). Here, however, § 5110(b)(4) does not authorize tolling that equity would not otherwise have allowed. If anything, its conditional and narrow applicability limits tolling that might otherwise have occurred. Though Arellano makes a valiant effort to turn a negative into a positive, § 5110(b)(4) remains an obstacle to his interpretation. Finally, Arellano contends that “the `nature of the underly- ing subject matter' ”—veterans' benefts—counsels in favor of tolling here. Brief for Petitioner 33–34. To support this proposition, he invokes Brockamp, which considered whether courts can equitably toll time limits for fling tax- refund claims. 519 U. S., at 348. After holding that the statute's text and structure rebutted the Irwin presumption, we observed that the “nature of the underlying subject matter—tax collection—underscore[d] the linguistic point.” 14 ARELLANO v. McDONOUGH

Opinion of the Court

Brockamp, 519 U. S., at 352. “Tax law, after all, is not nor- mally characterized by case-specifc exceptions refecting in- dividualized equities.” Ibid. By contrast, Arellano argues, providing benefts to veterans is a context in which individu- alized equities are paramount. See King v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 220–221, n. 9 (1991) (“[P]rovisions for benefts to members of the Armed Services are to be con- strued in the benefciaries' favor”). If the text and structure favored Arellano, the nature of the subject matter would garnish an already solid argument. But the nature of the subject matter cannot overcome text and structure that foreclose equitable tolling. Brockamp turned to the “nature of the underlying subject matter” only to “underscor[e] the linguistic point.” 519 U. S., at 352. Arellano, however, lacks the linguistic point. This is not a case in which competing interpretations are equally plausi- ble; it is one in which Congress's choice is evident.3

Page Proof Pending * * * Publication We hold that § 5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling and affrm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

3 We resolve only the applicability of equitable tolling to § 5110(b)(1). We do not address the applicability of other equitable doctrines, such as waiver, forfeiture, and estoppel. Reporter’s Note

The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions Page Proof Pending Publication for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation. The following additional edits were made:

None