Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1164_7li8.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

WILKINS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–1164.  Argued November 30, 2022—Decided March 28, 2023 

Petitioners  Larry  Steven  Wilkins  and  Jane  Stanton  own  properties  in
rural Montana that border a road for which the United States has held 
an easement since 1962.  The Government claims that the easement 
includes public access, which petitioners dispute.  In 2018, petitioners
sued  the  Government  under  the  Quiet  Title  Act,  which  allows  chal-
lenges to the United States’ rights in real property.  The Government 
moved to dismiss on the ground that petitioners’ claim is barred by the
Act’s 12-year time bar.  28 U. S. C. §2409a(g).  Petitioners countered 
that  §2409a(g)’s  time  limit  is  a  nonjurisdictional  claims-processing 
rule.  The District Court agreed with the Government and dismissed 
the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Ninth Circuit held 
that §2409a(g) had already been interpreted as jurisdictional in Block 
v.  North  Dakota  ex  rel.  Board  of  Univ.  and  School  Lands,  461  U. S. 
273, and affirmed. 

Held: Section 2409a(g) is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule.  Pp. 

3–12. 

(a) Jurisdiction is a word of many meanings.  This Court has empha-
sized the distinction between “the classes of cases a court may enter-
tain  (subject-matter  jurisdiction)”  and  “nonjurisdictional  claim-pro-
cessing rules, which seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation 
by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain 
specified times.”  Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U. S. ___, ___.  Non-
jurisdictional  claim-processing  rules  generally  include  a  range  of 
“threshold requirements that claimants must complete, or exhaust, be-
fore filing a lawsuit.”  Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 
166.  Jurisdictional  bars—which  may  be  raised  by  any  party  at  any 
time during the proceedings and which are required to be raised by a 
court sua sponte—run  the  risk  of  disrupting  the  “orderly  progress  of