Supreme Court of the United States

Name: Wilkins v. United States
Author: Supreme Court of the United States

Wilkins v. United States (2023)

Summary

“Wilkins v. United States”, published in 2023, is a work by Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as waiver of sovereign, sovereign immunity and equitable tolling.

Quotes from Wilkins v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States)

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ This Court’s skepticism of the jurisdictional character of procedural bars does not extend to conditions on a waiver of sovereign immunity. In the context of a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court presumes that procedural limitations are jurisdictional. The Act’s time bar is one such provision, and, as such, this Court should interpret it as a jurisdictional bar to suit.
As a sovereign, the United States “is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, ... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ Then, as now, “none of our decisions establishe [d] ” that the time limit was jurisdictional, so there was no definitive judicial interpretation to which Congress could acquiesce. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 291 (2001) . The mere existence of a decision employing the term jurisdiction without elaboration does not show Congress adopted that view. Nor can the Government’s handful of lower court opinions stand in for a ruling of this Court, especially where some of these decisions contain only fleeting references to jurisdiction. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ Subject-matter jurisdiction, as noted, is never subject to equitable tolling. If Block and Mottaz had definitely interpreted §2409a (g) as subject-matter jurisdictional, the Court could have just cited those cases and ended the matter without further discussion. [6] Instead, the Court parsed the provision’s text and context, concluding that “by providing that the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the plaintiff ‘knew or should have known of the claim of the United States,’ ” the law “has already effectively allowed for equitable tolling.” ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ Or the Court might have, on reflection, agreed with the Government that it had sufficiently raised the Quiet Title Act prior to rehearing. Ibid. The dissent, post, at 8, n. 3, mistakes these observations as a suggestion that Mottaz actually took one of those approaches. Far from it. This Court is merely declining to read tea leaves to divine lost meanings about what the Mottaz Court might have thought about a forfeiture argument it never raised and over which “the parties did not cross swords.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 512 (2006) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ Petitioners allege that the road’s public use has intruded upon their private lives, with strangers trespassing, stealing, and even shooting Wilkins’ cat.
Petitioners sued over the scope of the easement under the Quiet Title Act, which allows challenges to the United States’ rights in real property. Invoking the Act’s 12-year time limit, 28 U. S. C. §2409a (g) , the Government maintains that the suit is jurisdictionally barred. Petitioners counter, and the Court holds, that §2409a (g) is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ Limits on subject-matter jurisdiction, in contrast, have a unique potential to disrupt the orderly course of litigation. “Branding a rule as going to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction alters the normal operation of our adversarial system.” Id., at 434. “For purposes of efficiency and fairness, our legal system is replete with rules” like forfeiture, which require parties to raise arguments themselves and to do so at certain times. Ibid. Jurisdictional bars, however, “may be raised at any time” and courts have a duty to consider them sua sponte. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.
Larry Steven Wilkins and Jane Stanton wanted quiet titles and a quiet road. Wilkins and Stanton, the petitioners here, both live alongside Robbins Gulch Road in rural Montana. The United States has permission, called an easement, for use of the road, which the Government interprets to include making the road available for public use. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ There is nothing more than an “unrefined dispositio [n] ” stating that a “threshold fact” must “b [e] established” for there to be “jurisdiction.” 546 U. S., at 511 (internal quotation marks omitted) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Wilkins v. United States (2023)

“ United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 586 (1941) ; see also Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156, 160 (1981) ; United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 212 (1983) (describing this principle as “axiomatic”) . ”

Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from Wilkins v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature