▪ Cert Grant in Inverse Condemnation Case - Are Statutes of Limitations Jurisdictional?

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 a jurisdictional bar to an inverse condemnation claim.  Apparently, the government on appeal did not assert that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  But the court of appeals did, and dismissed because the statute of limitations goes to jurisdiction, and cannot be waived. 

Whether the statute of limitations is a "jurisdictional" bar, or whether it is waiveable is an issue for us legal wonk types, and probably will not rile up the public one way or the other like Kelo, for example.  However, the Court's decision should clarify an area of procedural law that lawyers often presume they understand the basis for, but nearly as often do not.  (The canon being that statutes of limitations are jurisdictional, especially in claims against the government -- the theory being that although "the King can do no wrong," sovereign immunity can be waived, but such waivers are read narrowly.)

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.