What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

Opinion:
JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
No. 06-1164.
Argued November 6, 2007
Decided January 8, 2008
Jeffrey K. Haynes argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Keith C. Jablonski and Gregory C. Sisk.
Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General
Clement, Acting Assistant Attorney General Tenpas, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, and Aaron P. Avila
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the National Association of Home Builders by Duane J. Desiderio and Thomas J. Ward; and for the Pacific Legal Foundation by Diana M. Kirchheim and James S. Burling.
Thomas C. Goldstein, Patricia A. Millett, Robert Huffman, and Steven C. Nadeau filed a brief for the Metamora Group as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a court must raise on its own the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims, despite the Government’s waiver of the issue. We hold that the special statute of limitations governing the Court of Federal Claims requires that sua sponte consideration.
I
Petitioner John R. Sand & Gravel Company filed an action in the Court of Federal Claims in May 2002. The complaint explained that petitioner held a 50-year mining lease on certain land. And it asserted that various Environmental Protection Agency activities on that land (involving, e. g., the building and moving of various fences) amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its leasehold rights.
The Government initially asserted that petitioner’s several claims were all untimely in light of the statute providing that “[e]very claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” 28 U. S. C. §2501. Later, however, the Government effectively conceded that certain claims were timely. See App. 37a-39a (Government’s pretrial brief). The Government subsequently won on the merits. See 62 Fed. Cl. 556, 589 (2004).
Petitioner appealed the adverse judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 457 F. 3d 1345, 1346 (2006). The Government’s brief said nothing about the statute of limitations, but an amicus brief called the issue to the court’s attention. See id., at 1352. The court considered itself obliged to address the limitations issue, and it held that the action was untimely. Id., at 1353-1360. We subsequently agreed to consider whether the Court of Appeals was right to ignore the Government’s waiver and to decide the timeliness question. 550 U. S. 968 (2007).
II
Most statutes of limitations seek primarily to protect defendants against stale or unduly delayed claims. See, e. g., United States v. Kubrick, 444 U. S. 111, 117 (1979). Thus, the law typically treats a limitations defense as an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise at the pleadings stage and that is subject to rules of forfeiture and waiver. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 8(c)(1), 12(b), 15(a); Dag v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 198, 202 (2006); Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 393 (1982). Such statutes also typically permit courts to toll the limitations period in light of special equitable considerations. See, e. g., Rotella v. Wood, 528 U. S. 549, 560-561 (2000); Zipes, supra, at 393; see also Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F. 2d 446, 450-453 (CA7 1990).
Some statutes of limitations, however, seek not so much to protect a defendant’s case-specific interest in timeliness as to achieve a broader system-related goal, such as facilitating the administration of claims, see, e. g., United States v. Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347, 352-353 (1997), limiting the scope of a governmental waiver of sovereign immunity, see, e. g., United States v. Dalm, 494 U. S. 596, 609-610 (1990), or promoting judicial efficiency, see, e. g., Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 210-213 (2007). The Court has often read the time limits of these statutes as more absolute, say, as requiring a court to decide a timeliness question despite a waiver, or as forbidding a court to consider whether certain equitable considerations warrant extending a limitations period. See, e. g., id., at 212-213; see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 514 (2006). As convenient shorthand, the Court has sometimes referred to the time limits in such statutes as “jurisdictional.” See, e. g., Bowles, supra, at 210.
This Court has long interpreted the court of claims limitations statute as setting forth this second, more absolute, kind of limitations period.
A
In Kendall v. United States, 107 U. S. 123 (1883), the Court applied a predecessor of the current 6-year bar to a claim that had first accrued in 1865 but that the plaintiff did not bring until 1872. Id., at 124; see also Act of Mar. 3, 1863, § 10, 12 Stat. 767 (Rev. Stat. § 1069). The plaintiff, a former Confederate States employee, had asked for equitable tolling on the ground that he had not been able to bring the suit until Congress, in 1868, lifted a previously imposed legal disability. See 107 U. S., at 124-125. But the Court denied the request. Id., at 125-126. It did so not because it thought the equities ran against the plaintiff, but because the statute (with certain listed exceptions) did not permit tolling. Justice Harlan, writing for the Court, said the statute was “jurisdictionjal],” that it was not susceptible to judicial “en-grafting] ” of unlisted disabilities such as “sickness, surprise, or inevitable accident,” and that “it [was] the duty of the court to raise the [timeliness] question whether it [was] done by plea or not.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
Four years later, in Finn v. United States, 123 U. S. 227 (1887), the Court found untimely a claim that had originally been filed with a Government agency, but which that agency had then voluntarily referred by statute to the Court of Claims. Id., at 229-230 (citing Act of June 25, 1868, § 7, 15 Stat. 76); see also Rev. Stat. §§1063-1065. That Government reference, it might have been argued, amounted to a waiver by the Government of any limitations-based defense. Cf. United States v. Lippitt, 100 U. S. 663, 669 (1880) (reserving the question of the time bar’s application in such circumstances). The Court nonetheless held that the long (over 10-year) delay between the time the claim accrued and the plaintiff’s filing of the claim before the agency made the suit untimely. Finn, 123 U. S., at 232. And as to any argument of Government waiver or abandonment of the time-bar defense, Justice Harlan, again writing for the Court, said that the ordinary legal principle that “limitation ... is a defence [that a defendant] must plead ... has no application to suits in the Court of Claims against the United States.” Id., at 232-233 (emphasis added).
Over the years, the Court has reiterated in various contexts this or similar views about the more absolute nature of the court of claims limitations statute. See Soriano v. United States, 352 U. S. 270, 273-274 (1957); United States v. Greathouse, 166 U. S. 601, 602 (1897); United States v. New York, 160 U. S. 598, 616-619 (1896); De Arnaud v. United States, 151 U. S. 483, 495-496 (1894).
B
The statute’s language has changed slightly since Kendall was decided in 1883, but we do not see how any changes in language make a difference here. The only arguably pertinent linguistic change took place during the 1948 recodification of Title 28. See § 2501, 62 Stat. 976. Prior to 1948, the statute said that “[e]very claim . . . cognizable by the Court of Claims, shall be forever barred” unless filed within six years of the time it first accrues. Rev. Stat. § 1069 (emphasis added); see also Act of Mar. 3, 1911, § 156, 36 Stat. 1139 (reenacting the statute without any significant changes). Now, it says that “[e]very claim of which” the Court of Federal Claims “has jurisdiction shall be barred” unless filed within six years of the time it first accrues. 28 U. S. C. § 2501 (emphasis added).
This Court does not “presume” that the 1948 revision “worked a change in the underlying substantive law ‘unless an intent to make such a change is clearly expressed.’” Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U. S. 200, 209 (1993) (quoting Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227 (1957); alterations omitted); see also H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-8 (1947) (hereinafter Rep. No. 308) (revision sought to codify, not substantively modify, existing law); Barron, The Judicial Code: 1948 Revision, 8 F. R. D. 439 (1948) (same). We can find no such expression of intent here. The two linguistic forms (“cognizable by”; “has jurisdiction”) mean about the same thing. See Black’s Law Dictionary 991 (4th ed. 1951) (defining “jurisdiction” as “the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases” (emphasis added)); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1038 (3d ed. 1933) (similarly using the term “cognizance” to define “jurisdiction”). Nor have we found any suggestion in the Reviser’s Notes or anywhere else that Congress intended to change the prior meaning. See Rep. No. 308, at A192 (Reviser’s Note); Barron, supra, at 446 (Reviser’s Notes specify where change was intended). Thus, it is not surprising that nearly a decade after the revision, the Court, citing Kendall, again repeated that the statute’s limitations period was “jurisdictionfal]” and not susceptible -to equitable tolling. See Soriano, supra, at 273-274, 277.
III
In consequence, petitioner can succeed only by convincing us that this Court has overturned, or that it should now overturn, its earlier precedent.
A
We cannot agree with petitioner that the Court already has overturned the earlier precedent. It is true, as petitioner points out, that in Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990), we adopted “a more general rule” to replace our prior ad hoc approach for determining whether a Government-related statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling — namely, “that the same rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits against private defendants should also apply to suits against the United States.” Id., at 95-96. It is also true that Irwin, using that presumption, found equitable tolling applicable to a statute of limitations governing employment discrimination claims against the Government. See id., at 96; see also 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(c) (1988 ed.). And the Court noted that this civil rights statute was linguistically similar to the court of claims statute at issue here. See Irwin, supra, at 94-95.
But these few swallows cannot make petitioner’s summer. That is because Irwin dealt with a different limitations statute. That statute, while similar to the present statute in language, is unlike the present statute in the key respect that the Court had not previously provided a definitive interpretation. Moreover, the Court, while mentioning a case that reflects the particular interpretive history of the court of claims statute, namely, Soriano, supra, says nothing at all about overturning that or any other case in that line. See 498 U. S., at 94-95. Courts do not normally overturn a long line of earlier cases without mentioning the matter. Indeed, Irwin recognized that it was announcing a general prospective rule, see id., at 95, which does not imply revisiting past precedents.
Finally, Irwin adopted a “rebuttable presumption” of equitable tolling. Ibid, (emphasis added). That presumption seeks to produce a set of statutory interpretations that will more accurately reflect Congress’ likely meaning in the mine run of instances where it enacted a Government-related statute of limitations. But the word “rebuttable” means that the presumption is not conclusive. Specific statutory language, for example, could rebut the presumption by demonstrating Congress’ intent to the contrary. And if so, a definitive earlier interpretation of the statute, finding a similar congressional intent, should offer a similarly sufficient rebuttal.
Petitioner adds that in Franconia Associates v. United States, 536 U. S. 129 (2002), we explicitly considered the court of claims limitations statute, we described the statute as “unexceptional,” and we cited Irwin for the proposition “that limitations principles should generally apply to the Government in the same way that they apply to private parties.” 536 U. S., at 145 (internal quotation marks omitted). But we did all of this in the context of rejecting an argument by the Government that the court of claims statute embodies a special, earlier-than-normal, rule as to when a claim first accrues. Id., at 144-145. The quoted language thus refers only to the statute’s claims-accrual rule and adds little or nothing to petitioner’s contention that Irwin overruled our earlier cases — a contention that we have just rejected.
B
Petitioner’s argument must therefore come down to an invitation now to reject or to overturn Kendall, Finn, Soriano, and related cases. In support, petitioner can claim that Irwin and Franconia represent a turn in the course of the law and can argue essentially as follows: The law now requires courts, when they interpret statutes setting forth limitations periods in respect to actions against the Government, to place greater weight upon the equitable importance of treating the Government like other litigants and less weight upon the special governmental interest in protecting public funds. Cf. Irwin, supra, at 95-96. The older interpretations treated these interests differently. Those older cases have consequently become anomalous. The Government is unlikely to have relied significantly upon those earlier cases. Hence the Court should now overrule them.
Basic principles of stare decisis, however, require us to reject this argument. Any anomaly the old cases and Irwin together create is not critical; at most, it reflects a different judicial assumption about the comparative weight Congress would likely have attached to competing legitimate interests. Moreover, the earlier cases lead, at worst, to different interpretations of different, but similarly worded, statutes; they do not produce “unworkable” law. See United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U. S. 843, 856 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); California v. FERC, 495 U. S. 490, 499 (1990). Further, stare decisis in respect to statutory interpretation has “special force,” for “Congress remains free to alter what we have done.” Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172-173 (1989); see also Watson v. United States, ante, at 82-83. Additionally, Congress has long acquiesced in the interpretation we have given. See ibid.; Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. 13, 23 (2005).
Finally, even if the Government cannot show detrimental reliance on our earlier cases, our reexamination of well-settled precedent could nevertheless prove harmful. Justice Brandéis once observed that “in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.” Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 406 (1932) (dissenting opinion). To overturn a decision settling one such matter simply because we might believe that decision is no longer “right” would inevitably reflect a willingness to reconsider others. And that willingness could itself threaten to substitute disruption, confusion, and uncertainty for necessary legal stability. We have not found here any factors that might overcome these considerations.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?

Choices:
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
U.S. Court of Military Review
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
U.S. Customs Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. Tax Court
Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
U.S. Court for China
U.S. Consular Courts
U.S. Commerce Court
Territorial Supreme Court
Territorial Appellate Court
Territorial Trial Court
Emergency Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Bankruptcy Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
Alaska U.S. District Court
Arizona U.S. District Court
Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
California Central U.S. District Court
California Eastern U.S. District Court
California Northern U.S. District Court
California Southern U.S. District Court
Colorado U.S. District Court
Connecticut U.S. District Court
Delaware U.S. District Court
District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
Florida Middle U.S. District Court
Florida Northern U.S. District Court
Florida Southern U.S. District Court
Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
Guam U.S. District Court
Hawaii U.S. District Court
Idaho U.S. District Court
Illinois Central U.S. District Court
Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
Kansas U.S. District Court
Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
Maine U.S. District Court
Maryland U.S. District Court
Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
Michigan Western U.S. District Court
Minnesota U.S. District Court
Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
Missouri Western U.S. District Court
Montana U.S. District Court
Nebraska U.S. District Court
Nevada U.S. District Court
New Hampshire U.S. District Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
New Mexico U.S. District Court
New York Eastern U.S. District Court
New York Northern U.S. District Court
New York Southern U.S. District Court
New York Western U.S. District Court
North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
North Dakota U.S. District Court
Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
Oregon U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
Rhode Island U.S. District Court
South Carolina U.S. District Court
South Dakota U.S. District Court
Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
Texas Northern U.S. District Court
Texas Southern U.S. District Court
Texas Western U.S. District Court
Utah U.S. District Court
Vermont U.S. District Court
Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
Virginia Western U.S. District Court
Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
Washington Western U.S. District Court
West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
Wyoming U.S. District Court
Louisiana U.S. District Court
Washington U.S. District Court
West Virginia U.S. District Court
Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
Alabama U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
Georgia U.S. District Court
Illinois U.S. District Court
Indiana U.S. District Court
Iowa U.S. District Court
Michigan U.S. District Court
Mississippi U.S. District Court
Missouri U.S. District Court
New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
New York U.S. District Court
North Carolina U.S. District Court
Ohio U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
Tennessee U.S. District Court
Texas U.S. District Court
Virginia U.S. District Court
Norfolk U.S. District Court
Wisconsin U.S. District Court
Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
California U.S. District Court
Florida U.S. District Court
Arkansas U.S. District Court
District of Orleans U.S. District Court
State Supreme Court
State Appellate Court
State Trial Court
Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
Middle Circuit (of the United States)
Southern Circuit (of the United States)
Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
Utah U.S. Circuit

Answer: 7