Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 61

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

15 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

of  negative  inferences  when  interpreting  statutes  can  be 
risky.  “Context counts, and it is sometimes difficult to read 
much into the absence of a word that is present elsewhere
in  a  statute.”  Bartenwerfer  v.  Buckley,  598  U. S.  69,  78 
(2023).

The majority’s approach overlooks relevant context in all
sorts of ways, including the fact that §2401(a) is a catchall 
provision that applies to a variety of actions—that is, the
language  we  are  interpreting  here  does  not  apply  only  in 
the  administrative-law  context.  It  applies  to  every  suit 
against the United States not covered by another statute of 
limitations.  One cannot expect for Congress to have explic-
itly stated that accrual in §2401(a) starts at the point of fi-
nal agency action when §2401(a) is a residual provision that 
also applies to claims that do not involve agency action at
all.8 

Frankly, it was also entirely unnecessary for Congress to
be explicit regarding its intentions. Again, in the adminis-
trative-law context, the consistent rule is not the plaintiff-
specific  accrual  rule  that  exists  in  other  contexts  (e.g.,
torts),  but  the  rule  that  applies  every  time  Congress  has
ever mentioned a limitations period with respect to a suit
against an agency: The claim accrues at the moment of final 
agency action.  So it is no wonder that Congress did not ex-
pressly mention this in the text of §2401(a)—it did not have 
to, for those who have a basic understanding of its statutes.
What is more, the standard accrual rule for the adminis-
trative-law context makes perfect sense.  The APA itself fo-
cuses on the agency’s action, not on the plaintiff.  Section 
704  subjects  certain  “agency  action[s]”  to  judicial  review. 

—————— 
majority’s  conclusion  that  the  accrual  rule  is  plaintiff  specific  for  APA 
claims is no more than ipse dixit. 

8 Contra the majority, see ante, at 12, the fact that Congress could have 
opted to enact a specific statutory review provision for APA claims says
nothing about how we should apply the catchall review provision here.