Supreme Court: Getting It Right Doesn't Matter - Statute of Limitations in Inverse Condemnation Claims Against the Federal Government is Jurisdictional

In John R. Sand & Gravel v. United States, No. 06-1164 (Jan. 8, 2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the six year statute of limitations in the Tucker Act is "jurisdictional," and must be ruled upon by a court when raised by an amicus on appeal, even when the government had waived it.  The property owner brought an inverse condemnation action in the Court of Federal Claims, asserting the federal government took its property without compensation when it placed fences on its leased property.  Inverse condemnation claims seeking compensation from the federal government in excess of $10,000 must be brought in the CFC.  The Federal Circuit opinion is posted here (500kb pdf).

The short majority opinion by Justice Breyer held that the Court had reached the same result in earlier decisions, and those decisions should not be overruled.  Invoking the principle of stare decisis, the Court held that overturning precedent merely because it is now viewed as incorrect could threaten to destabilize the law:

reexamination of well-settled precedent could nevertheless prove harmful. Justice Brandeis once observed that “in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.”

Slip op. at 8-9 (quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).  The Court continued:

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.

The issue of whether a time limit is merely "procedural" or "jurisdictional" goes to whether it may be waived by the defendant. Procedural time limitations are lost if the defendant fails to assert them.  Issues of subject matter jurisdiction, however, cannot be waived, and may be raised at any time (even on appeal) and on the court's own initiative.  Big difference.   

The BLT (Blog of Legal Times) posts "Sand, Gravel, and Stare Decisis," commentary that although the case is about a technical point more than a headline grabbing issue, it may have further implications, since the question of stare decisis arises in confirmation hearings for SCOTUS justices, and how they would, if confirmed, respect decisions such as Roe v. Wade.  The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog comments here.

Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute posted a comprehensive summary and analysis of the the arguments.  The merits and amicus briefs discussed in the LII's summary have been posted on the ABA's Supreme Court preview site:  Petitioner's brief; US government's brief; amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation; and amicus brief of the National Association of Homebuilders.