Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Respondents’ argument goes like this.  Non-parties who are 
bound by a judgment can obtain appellate review by filing 
a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by law.  See 
28  U. S. C.  §2107(a);  Fed.  Rule  App.  Proc.  4(a)(1).    These 
time  limits  are  jurisdictional,  see  Bowles  v.  Russell,  551 
U. S. 205, 209 (2007); Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 
U. S.  312,  315  (1988);  Griggs  v.  Provident  Consumer  Dis-
count Co., 459 U. S. 56, 61 (1982) (per curiam).  And because 
non-parties who are bound by a judgment can seek appel-
late review in this way, they cannot circumvent the juris-
dictional time limits for filing a notice of appeal by filing a 
motion to intervene after the deadline for filing a notice of 
appeal has passed. 
  Applying this theory, respondents contend that the Court 
of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to entertain the attorney gen-
eral’s  motion.    Because  the  attorney  general  agreed  to  be 
bound  by  the  judgment,  respondents  maintain,  he  could 
have  filed  a  notice  of  appeal,  but  since  he  failed  to  do  so 
within the time allowed by law, his motion for intervention 
should be treated like an untimely notice of appeal. 

B 
  This argument fails for the simple reason that no provi-
sion of law limits the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals in 
the way respondents suggest.  We do not read a statute or 
rule to impose a jurisdictional requirement unless its lan-
guage clearly does so.  See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U. S. 
428,  439  (2011)  (a  provision  is  not  jurisdictional  when  its 
language  “provides  no  clear  indication  that  Congress 
wanted that provision to be treated as having jurisdictional 
attributes”).  Here, respondents cite no provision of law that 
deprives a court of appeals of jurisdiction to entertain a mo-
tion  for  intervention  that  is  filed  by  a  non-party  who  is 
bound by the judgment that is appealed.  No such language 
can be found in either 28 U. S. C. §2107, the Federal Rules 
of  Appellate  Procedure  3  and  4,  or  any  other  provision  of