The merits brief of the United States in John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, No. 06-1164 has been posted here. Docket listing here.
The case involves an inverse condemnation claim against the federal government under the Tucker Act. Apparently, the government in the Court of Federal Claims did not raise a statue of limitations defense, nor did it on the appeal to the Federal Circuit.
But the Federal Circuit raised and decided the issue sua sponte, dismissing the case because the statute of limitations goes to jurisdiction, and cannot be waived. The Federal Circuit opinion is posted here (500kb pdf).
The Question Presented by the property owner/petitioner as I mentioned here is:
The statute of limitations in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §2501, provides: “Every 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.”
The questions[*] presented are:
1. Whether the statute of limitations in the Tucker Act limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.*The petition set forth two Questions Presented, but the Court granted review only to the first. The property owner/petitioner's brief is posted here (500kb pdf). The Government's brief frames the issue slightly differently:
Whether the court of appeals erred by addressing the timeliness of petitioner's complaint even though the government did not argue on appeal that the suit was barred by the six-year limitations period contained in 28 U.S.C. 2501.
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 issue is an important but technical point, so this case will probably 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 "statutes of limitations are jurisdictional," especially in claims against the government, based on the theory that although "the King can do no wrong," sovereign immunity may be waived (the Tucker Act is one such waiver), but such waivers are read narrowly.
The oral arguments will take place on November 7, 2007.
