Legal Document

128 S. Ct. 750 (2008) JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 06-1164. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 6, 2007. Decided January 8, 2008. *752 Jeffrey K. Haynes, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Petitioner. Malcolm L. Stewart, Washington, D.C., Respondent. Gregory C. Sisk, Minneapolis MN, Keith Jablonski, Beier Howlett, P.C., Paul D. Clement, Ronald J. Tenpas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Edwin Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor to the Aaron P. Avila, Department Justice BREYER delivered opinion Court. The question presented is whether a court must raise on its own timeliness lawsuit filed in Federal Claims, despite Government's waiver issue. We hold that special statute limitations governing Claims requires sua sponte consideration. I Petitioner John Sand Gravel Company an action *753 May 2002. complaint explained petitioner held 50-year mining lease certain land. And it asserted various Environmental Protection Agency activities land (involving, e.g., building and moving fences) amounted unconstitutional taking leasehold rights. Government initially petitioner's several claims were all untimely light providing "[e]very claim which States has jurisdiction shall be barred unless petition thereon within six years after such first accrues." 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Later, however, effectively conceded timely. See App. 37a-39a (Government's pretrial brief). subsequently won merits. 62 Fed. Cl. 556, 589 (2004). appealed adverse judgment Appeals Circuit. 457 F.3d 1345, 1346 (2006). brief said nothing about limitations, but amicus called issue court's attention. id., at 1352. considered itself obliged address issue, was untimely. Id., 1353-1360. agreed consider right ignore decide question. 550 U.S. ___, 127 2877, 167 Ed. 2d 1151 (2007). II Most statutes seek primarily protect defendants against stale or unduly delayed claims. See, Kubrick, 444 111, 117, 100 352, 259 (1979). Thus, law typically treats defense as affirmative defendant pleadings stage subject rules forfeiture waiver. Rules Civ. Proc. 8(c)(1), 12(b), 15(a); Day McDonough, 547 198, 202, 126 1675, 164 376 (2006); Zipes Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 385, 393, 102 1127, 71 234 (1982). Such also permit courts toll period equitable considerations. Rotella Wood, 528 549, 560-561, 120 1075, 145 1047 (2000); Zipes, supra, 1127; see Cada Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450-453 (C.A.7 1990). Some not so much defendant's case-specific interest achieve broader system-related goal, facilitating administration claims, see, Brockamp, 519 347, 352-353, 117 849, 136 818 (1997), limiting scope governmental sovereign immunity, Dalm, 494 596, 609-610, 110 1361, 108 548 (1990), promoting judicial efficiency, Bowles Russell, 551 ___ - 2360, 2365-66, 168 96 often read time limits these more absolute, say requiring waiver, forbidding considerations warrant extending period. ibid.; Arbaugh Y H 546 500, 514, 1235, 163 1097 As convenient shorthand, sometimes referred "jurisdictional." Bowles, 2364. This long interpreted setting *754 forth this second, kind A In Kendall States, 107 123, 2 277, 27 437 (1883), applied predecessor current 6-year bar had accrued 1865 plaintiff did bring until 1872. 124, 277; Act Mar. 3, 1863, 10, 12 Stat. 767 (Rev.Stat. 1069). plaintiff, former Confederate employee, asked tolling ground he been able suit Congress, 1868, lifted previously imposed legal disability. U.S., 124-125, 277. But denied request. 125-126, It because thought equities ran (with listed exceptions) tolling. Harlan, writing Court, "jurisdiction[al]," susceptible "engraft[ing]" unlisted disabilities "sickness, surprise, inevitable accident," "it [was] duty [timeliness] done by plea not." Ibid. (emphasis added). Four later, Finn 123 227, 8 82, 31 (1887), found originally with agency, agency then voluntarily Claims. 229-230, 82 (citing June 25, 7, 15 76-77); Rev. §§ 1063-1065. That reference, might have argued, any limitations-based defense. Cf. Lippitt, 663, 669, 622, 25 747 (1880) (reserving bar's application circumstances). nonetheless (over 10-year) delay between plaintiff's filing before made Finn, 232, 82. argument abandonment time-bar defense, again ordinary principle "limitation. . defence [that defendant] plead no suits States." Id. 232-233, Over years, reiterated contexts similar views absolute nature statute. Soriano 352 270, 273-274, 77 269, 1 306 (1957); Greathouse, 166 601, 602, 17 701, 41 1130 (1897); New York, 160 598, 616-619, 459, 16 402, 40 (1896); De Arnaud 151 483, 495-496, 29 555, 14 374, 38 244 (1894). B statute's language changed slightly since decided 1883, we do how changes make difference here. only arguably pertinent linguistic change took place during 1948 recodification Title 28. 2501, 976. Prior 1948, claim. cognizable forever barred" accrues. 1069 added); 1911, 156, 36 1139 *755 (reenacting without significant changes). Now, says which" "has 2501 does "presume" revision "worked underlying substantive `unless intent clearly expressed.'" Keene Corp. 508 200, 209, 113 2035, 124 118 (1993) (quoting Fourco Glass Co. Transmirra Products 353 222, 787, 786 (1957) (alterations omitted)); 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1-8 (1947) (hereinafter Rep. 308) (revision sought codify, substantively modify, existing law); Barron, Judicial Code: Revision, F.R.D. 439 (1948) (same). can find expression two forms ("cognizable by"; jurisdiction") mean same thing. Black's Law Dictionary 991 (4th ed.1951) (defining "jurisdiction" "the authority officers take cognizance cases" added)); 1038 (3d ed.1933) (similarly using term "cognizance" define "jurisdiction"). Nor suggestion Reviser's Notes anywhere else Congress intended prior meaning. A192 (Reviser's Note); 446 specify where intended). surprising nearly decade revision, citing Kendall, repeated "jurisdiction[al]" Soriano, 269. III consequence, succeed convincing us overturned, should now overturn, earlier precedent. cannot agree already overturned true, points out, Irwin Veterans Affairs, 498 89, 111 453, 112 435 adopted "a general rule" replace our ad hoc approach determining Government-related tollingnamely, "that rebuttable presumption applicable private apply 95-96, 453. true Irwin, presumption, employment discrimination Government. 96, 453; 42 2000e-16(c) (1988 ed.). noted civil rights linguistically 94-95, few swallows summer. dealt different statute, while present language, unlike key respect provided definitive interpretation. Moreover, mentioning case reflects particular interpretive history namely 306, overturning other line. *756 Courts normally overturn line cases matter. Indeed, recognized announcing prospective rule, 95, imply revisiting past precedents. Finally, "rebuttable presumption" seeks produce set statutory interpretations will accurately reflect Congress' likely meaning mine run instances enacted limitations. word "rebuttable" means conclusive. Specific example, could rebut demonstrating contrary. if so, interpretation finding congressional intent, offer similarly sufficient rebuttal. adds Franconia Associates 536 129, 122 1993, 153 132 (2002), explicitly described "unexceptional," cited proposition principles generally way they parties." 145, 1993 (internal quotation marks omitted). context rejecting embodies special, earlier-than-normal, rule when 144-145, 1993. quoted thus refers claims-accrual little contention overruled casesa just rejected. Petitioner's therefore come down invitation reject related cases. support, represent turn course argue essentially follows: courts, interpret periods actions Government, greater weight upon importance treating like litigants less protecting public funds. older treated interests differently. Those consequently become anomalous. unlikely relied significantly those Hence overrule them. Basic stare decisis, require argument. Any anomaly old together create critical; most, assumption comparative would attached competing legitimate interests. lead, worst, different, worded, statutes; "unworkable" law. International Business Machines 517 843, 856, 116 1793, 135 (1996) omitted); California FERC, 495 490, 499, 2024, 109 474 (1990). Further, decisis "special force," "Congress remains free alter what done." Patterson McLean Credit Union, 491 164, 172-173, 2363, 105 (1989); *757 Watson 579, 585, L.Ed.2d Additionally, acquiesced given. Shepard 544 13, 23, 125 1254, 161 205 (2005). even show detrimental reliance cases, reexamination well-settled precedent nevertheless prove harmful. Brandeis once observed "in most matters important settled than right." Burnet Coronado Oil Gas Co., 285 406, 52 443, 76 815 (1932) (dissenting opinion). To decision settling one matter simply believe longer "right" inevitably willingness reconsider others. threaten substitute disruption, confusion, uncertainty necessary stability. here factors overcome IV affirmed. ordered. STEVENS, whom GINSBURG joins, dissenting. Statutes fall into broad categories: defenses waived so-called "jurisdictional" are For history, customarily placed latter category theory conditions immunity "must strictly exceptions thereto implied." 276, (1887); (1883). ignoredand presumably abandonedin Honda Clark, 386 484, 87 1188, 18 (1967),[1] Bowen City 476 467, 106 2022, 90 462 (1986).[2] followed lead (and, extension, Honda), replaced "applicable States."[3] acknowledged *758 "our previous dealing effect [had] entirely consistent," 94, determined continuing effort part each basis disadvantage unpredictability corresponding advantage fidelity Congress," crafted background reflected realistic assessment legislative intent," practically useful interpretation." Our merely "mentio[n]" ante, 756; rather, expressly declined follow case. closely resembled text confronted Soriano; although "[a]n [could] undoubtedly made" distinguishable, "not persuaded them enough manifest availability tolling," Having functionally indistinguishable, cite Finn. Instead, govern applicability Government," new favor us.[4] Nothing framing adopt "general ibid., suggested carve-out ineligible tolling, pursuant abandoned Bowen, definitively rejected Irwin. his separate White inconsistent "directly overrule[d]" Soriano. 98, 453 (opinion concurring judgment). Neither Court's nor my disagreed characterization holding. attempt today, therefore, cast entreaty well Finnand response "[b]asic argument," 756has hollow ring. If doctrine supplied clear answer posed caseor *759 plausibly IrwinI join judgment, unwisdom.[5] majority's reading seems me quite plain good law, there fact ambiguity ought resolved clarifying rather preserving anachronism whose doctrinal underpinnings discarded ago.[6] With provisions common enacting statutes, judges, applying them, rely considerable clarity. announced us.[7] Because today's threatens revive confusion pre-Irwin jurisprudence, respectfully dissent. GINSBURG, adhering irreconcilable reasoning result STEVENS' write separately explain why regard appropriate occasion revisit precedents (1990) (White, J., Stare important, inflexible, *760 405, (Brandeis, dissenting) ("Stare universal, inexorable command."). policies doctrinestability predictabilityare their strongest mind, though significance changed. Powell, Decisis Restraint, 47 Wash. Lee L.Rev. 281, 286-287 us, perception office limit decisions States," "limitations parties," (2002) Scarborough Principi, 541 401, 420-422, 1856, 158 674 damages coherence cling outworn odds enlightened decisions. surely suggest overruling routinely order whenever majority disagrees decision, acknowledge "[c]onsiderations force area interpretation," 172, (1989). concerns sufficiently weighty justify counsel strongly doing First, (1957), would, concedes, 756, "achieve uniform language," Rodriguez de Quijas Shearson/American Express, 490 477, 1917, 104 526 Second, propriety "intervening development law" "removed weakened [its] conceptual underpinnings." Patterson, 173, 2363. Franconianot mention recent efforts precision, 515-516, (2006)have left tenable progeny. Third, altogether positive detriment consistency law." inconsistency source both theoretical incoherence practical confusion. 2401(a) contains materially identical divided 2401(a)'s Compare Center Biological Diversity Hamilton, 1331, 1334 (C.A.11 2006) (per curiam), Cedars-Sinai Medical Shalala, 765, 770 (C.A.9 1997). Harris Aviation Admin., 1006, 1013, n. 7 (C.A.D.C.2004) (recognizing may undermined Circuit holding "jurisdictional"). Today's hardly assists lower endeavoring While "jurisdictional," implies governs *761 yet construedincluding, presumably, identically worded 2401. 756. implicitly 756-757, reason adhere provides support Kendall-Finn-Soriano "Stare added legislature, sphere, citizens, realm, acted instance dislodge expectations extensive response." Hilton South Carolina Public Railways Comm'n, 502 197, 560, 560 (1991). makes either citizens status There strong reasons abandonand notably slim tothe anachronistic Kendall. Several times, Terms, rendered infirm better informed opinion. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. PSKS, 2705, 2725, 623 (2007) (overruling Dr. Miles Park Sons 220 373, 376, 55 (1911)); 2366-67, Thompson INS, 375 384, 84 397, 11 404 (1964) Truck Lines, Cherry Meat Packers, 371 215, 83 283, 9 261 (1962) curiam)); Illinois Tool Works Independent Ink, 28, 42-43, 1281, 26 (2006) (overruling, inter alia, Morton Salt G.S. Suppiger 314 488, 86 363 (1942)); Hohn 524 236, 253, 1969, 141 242 (1998) House Mayo, 324 42, 65 517, 89 739 (1945) curiam)). overrulings, Soriano offering resultsis, least, perplexing. After need crystal ball predict reject, to, interpreting texts. reverse majority. accord dissenting Judge Newman, declare barred. NOTES [1] Honda, concluded, petitioners' attempts recover assets seized outbreak hostilities Japan, "consistent overall purpose traditional principle, aptly suited facts nowhere eschewed Congress." 501, 1188. [2] permitted 60-day requirement challenging denial disability benefits under Social Security Act. cautioned "we careful assume narrow intended, construe restrictively." 479, 2022 (citation internal [3] During oral arguments, Members remarked choose taken Bowen. Tr. Oral Arg., O.T.1990, 89-5867, 25-26 ("Question: `[W]hat you seem go really directions. case, unanimous traditionally maybe point direction[?]'"); `. think sort don't think?'"). [4] number contexts. 420-423, (2004) (applying fees Equal Access Act, 2412(d)(1)(A), amended out time). significantly, affirmed, `in that' parties" 453). Although correct undermines bearing construction. [5] rightly, "`special force'" prevent from acknowledging failed time. Rasul Bush, 542 466, 2686, 159 (2004), Braden 30th Ky., 410 93 1123, 35 443 (1973), Ahrens 335 188, 68 1443, 92 1898 (1948), habeas presence territorial reach district jurisdictional prerequisite. held, contrary Ahrens, prisoner's "inflexible rule," 1123. stated Rehnquist began dissent noting: "Today overrules Clark." 502, Thirty later clear: 478-479, 9, 2686. logic force" done," amendment obscure provision high priority busy remain mindful enactment legislation cost-free enterprise. [6] Holmes, Path Law, 10 Harv. 457, 469 (1897) ("It revolting laid Henry IV. still grounds vanished since, persists blind imitation past"). [7] gesture toward contending Irwin's apposite, allow rebutted "definitive interpretation" implausible, compared VII Civil Rights 1964, comparison reveal

Classification Label: 8