Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1164_7li8.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

WILKINS v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

road in 1991 and 2004.  Back in 1962, petitioners’ predeces-
sors in interest had granted the United States an easement 
for the road.  The Government contends that the easement 
includes public access, which petitioners dispute.  On peti-
tioners’ telling, the easement does not allow access to the 
general  public  and  requires  the  Government  to  maintain
and patrol the road.

In  2018,  petitioners  brought  suit  under  the  Quiet  Title
Act.  The Government moved to dismiss the action on the 
ground that the Act’s 12-year time limit had expired.  Un-
der  the  Act,  “[a]ny  civil  action  . . .  ,  except  for  an  action 
brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is commenced 
within  twelve  years  of  the  date  upon  which  it  accrued.” 
§2409a(g).  Accrual occurs “on the date the plaintiff or his
predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the
claim of the United States.”  Ibid.  The parties disagreed as
to  whether  the  Act’s  time  limit  is  jurisdictional,  which  is
relevant to the procedures for litigating whether §2409a(g) 
bars petitioners’ claim.1 

The District Court agreed with the Government and dis-
missed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  The 
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 
13 F. 4th 791 (2021).  Applying Circuit precedent, the Court
of  Appeals  held  that  this  Court  had  already  interpreted
§2409a(g) as jurisdictional in Block v. North Dakota ex rel. 
Board  of  Univ.  and  School  Lands,  461  U. S.  273  (1983). 
This further entrenched a divide among the Courts of Ap-
peals.2    This  Court  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  the  split, 
—————— 

1 The  parties  dispute  the  precise  implications  on  remand  of  a  ruling 
that §2409a(g) is nonjurisdictional.  This Court takes no position on that 
dispute. 

2 Compare  Wisconsin  Valley  Improvement  Co.  v.  United  States,  569 
F. 3d  331,  333–335  (CA7  2009),  with,  e.g.,  Bank  One  Texas  v.  United 
States, 157 F. 3d 397, 402–403 (CA5 1998); Spirit Lake Tribe v. North 
Dakota,  262  F.  3d  732,  737–738  (CA8  2001);  Kane  County  v.  United 
States,  772  F. 3d  1205,  1214–1215  (CA10  2014);  and  F.E.B.  Corp.  v. 
United States, 818 F. 3d 681, 685–686 (CA11 2016).