Summary

Byron White Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs…

Strangely enough, Congress would be required to provide expressly in each statute that the period of limitation was not to be extended by war. But Congress was entitled to assume that the limitation period it prescribed meant just that period and no more. With this intent in mind, Congress has passed specific legislation each time it has seen fit to toll such statutes of limitations because of war. And this Court has long decided that limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued must be strictly observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs…

The question in Soriano was whether war tolled the statute of limitations for claims against the Government filed in the Court of Claims. In arguing for equitable tolling, the plaintiff there relied on a case in which this Court had held that war had tolled a limitations statute for purposes of private causes of action. Id., at 275, 77 S.Ct., at 273. The Court was not persuaded, stating that " [t] hat case involved private citizens, not the Government. It has no applicability to claims against the sovereign."
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs…

The Court, however, holds that like statutes of limitations for suits between private litigants, limitations periods for suits against the Government will now presumptively be subject to equitable tolling. Ante, at 95-96. That holding needlessly reverses at least one of this Court's prior decisions and is in tension with several others.
Because of the existence of sovereign immunity, we have traditionally held that the Government's consent to be sued " 'cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.' " United States v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature