Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1164_7li8.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

ants  could  challenge  the  United  States’  title  to  real  prop-
erty,’ ” and the plaintiff ’s claim fell “within the Act’s scope.” 
Id., at 841–842 (quoting Block, 461 U. S., at 286).  Second, 
the  Court  “then  determine[d]  whether  [the]  suit  was
brought  within  the  relevant  limitations  period.”    Mottaz, 
476  U. S.,  at  841.    The  Court  concluded  that  the  plaintiff 
had notice over 12 years before she sued, and “[h]er claim
[was] therefore barred.”  Id., at 843–844.  Neither step in
the Court’s analysis “turn[ed] on” whether any time limits 
were “ ‘technically jurisdictional.’ ”  Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 
512 (quoting Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 91). 

General statements in the opinion about waivers of im-
munity cannot change this basic fact.  At the outset of its 
analysis, the Court observed that “the terms of [the United
States’] waiver of sovereign immunity define the extent of 
the court’s jurisdiction” and that “ ‘a statute of limitations 
. . .  constitutes  a  condition  on  the  waiver.’ ”    Mottaz,  476 
U. S., at 841 (quoting Block, 461 U. S., at 287).  Neither of 
these  statements,  however,  played  a  role  in  determining
which statute applied or whether the plaintiff brought her
claim within 12 years after it accrued.  There is also no in-
dication  in  the  opinion  that  the  parties  raised  tolling  or 
other equitable exceptions.  As such, “ ‘the legal character’ ” 
of the time limit was never “ ‘at issue.’ ”  Reed Elsevier, 559 
U. S., at 169, n. 8 (quoting Zipes, 455 U. S., at 395). 

The Government also points to Mottaz’s procedural back-
ground section.  Buried in a paragraph recounting a tangled 
procedural  history,  the  Court  remarked  that  the  Govern-
ment  raised  the  Quiet  Title  Act,  “apparently  for  the  first
time,” in a petition for rehearing.  476 U. S., at 840.  This 
supposedly reveals that the Court sua sponte and sub silen-
tio  raised,  considered,  and  rejected  an  argument  that  the
Government had forfeited the Quiet Title Act’s time limit, 
doing so all because the time limit was jurisdictional.  Yet 
a background section is an unlikely place for such a ruling. 
This  is  particularly  true  where,  as  the  word  “apparently”