Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1164_7li8.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–1164 
_________________ 

LARRY STEVEN WILKINS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
UNITED STATES 

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

[March 28, 2023]

 JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  and 

JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. 

The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits against the
United States.  But, in the Quiet Title Act of 1972, Congress
waived  this  immunity  and  consented  to  suits  against  the 
United States in order to determine the status of disputed 
property.  28  U. S. C.  §2409a.    Congress  conditioned  this
consent on, among other things, a 12-year statute of limita-
tions: “Any civil action under this section, except for an ac-
tion  brought  by  a  State,  shall  be  barred  unless  it  is  com-
menced  within  twelve  years  of  the  date  upon  which  it
accrued.”  §2409a(g).  This Court has long construed such 
conditions  on  waivers  of  sovereign  immunity  as  jurisdic-
tional.  And, it has acknowledged the jurisdictional nature 
of the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations in several prec-
edents. 

In holding that §2409a(g) is not jurisdictional, the major-
ity commits two critical errors.  First, it applies the same 
interpretive approach to a condition on a waiver of sover-
eign  immunity  that  it  would  apply  to  any  run-of-the-mill 
procedural rule.  Second, by reading the Court’s prior Quiet
Title Act precedents in this way, the Court disregards their 
express  recognition  of  the  jurisdictional  character  of  the 
Act’s time bar.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.