October Term 2022
No. 21-1164

Wilkins v. United States

Petitioner Larry Steven Wilkins, et al. · Respondent United States

Reporter
598 U.S. ___ (2023)
From
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
How it got here
writ of <i>certiorari</i>

Is the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule?

Question before the Court

What happened

Robbins Gulch Road runs between Highway 93 and the Bitterroot National Forest, crossing the private properties of Larry Wilkins and Jane Stanton near Connor, Montana. The previous owners of each of their properties had granted the United States an easement for Robbins Gulch Road in 1962. In 2018, Wilkins and Stanton sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) to confirm that the easement does not permit public use of the road and to enforce the government’s obligations to patrol and maintain the road against unrestricted public use. The district court granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

6–3 for Wilkins
with the majority concurring in dissent recused filed an opinion
How the vote aligned with ideology

Cross-aisle coalition.

Liberal Conservative
voted with the majority dissented

The split did not track the usual ideological lines — justices from both wings landed on the same side.

The opinions 2

Justice Sotomayor, for the Court

Sonia Sotomayor

Joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.

Justice Thomas, dissenting

Clarence Thomas

Joined by Roberts and Alito.

The holding

The Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court holding that Wilkins's and Stanton's lawsuit may proceed. Jurisdictional rules tend to disrupt litigation, whereas procedural rules (including claim-processing rules) seek to facilitate the litigation process. Given the risk of disruption and waste that accompanies the jurisdictional label, courts will view a procedural requirement as jurisdictional only if Congress “clearly states” that it is. As a general rule, most statutes of limitations are nonjurisdictional. The 12-year statute of limitations described in 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g) lacks a jurisdictional clear statement, and nothing in its text or context supports departing from the general rule that statutes of limitations are nonjurisdictional. Nor do any of the three cases the government cites definitively interpreted Section 2409a(g) as jurisdictional. Thus, the provision at issue is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional one. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the Court has long treated conditions on waivers of sovereign immunity, such as the one at issue in this case, as jurisdictional, and he would recognize the Court’s precedents as resolving the question.

Argued by

For the petitioner
  • Jeffrey W. McCoy for the Petitioners
For the respondent
  • Benjamin W. Snyder for the Respondent

Case path

  1. Jun 6, 2022 granted
  2. Nov 30, 2022 argued
  3. Mar 28, 2023 decided

Read the opinions