The US Supreme Court today granted review to an inverse condemnation case against the US government. The issue in John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States,is whether the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations is ajurisdictional bar to an inverse condemnation claim. Apparently, thegovernment on appeal did not assert that the claims were barred by thestatute of limitations. But the court of appeals did, and dismissedbecause the statute of limitations goes to jurisdiction, and cannot bewaived.
Whether the statute of limitations is a “jurisdictional” bar, orwhether it is waiveable is an issue for us legal wonk types, andprobably will not rile up the public one way or the other like Kelo,for example. However, the Court’s decision should clarify an area ofprocedural law that lawyers often presume they understand the basisfor, but nearly as often do not. (The canon being that statutes oflimitations are jurisdictional, especially in claims against thegovernment — the theory being that although “the King can do nowrong,” sovereign immunity can be waived, but such waivers are readnarrowly.)
The Federal Circuit opinion is here (300kb pdf). It does not appear that the cert. petition is yet on line, but here is the United States’ brief in opposition. Summaries of the case from SCOTUSblog, and from Supreme Court Times.
Note: the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, recently analyzed a similar issue, holding the six year statute of limitations barred a property owner’s inverse condemnation claim under state law. Opinion available here.