Wilkins v. United States

Last updated
Wilkins v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 30, 2022
Decided March 28, 2023
Full case nameWilkins v. United States
Docket no. 21-1164
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Questions presented
Is the Quiet Title Act's Statute of Limitations a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule?
Holding
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed and remanded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling, holding that the 12-year statute of limitations in section 2409a(g) of the Quiet Title Act is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajoritySotomayor
ConcurrenceKagan
ConcurrenceGorsuch
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
ConcurrenceBarett
ConcurrenceJackson
DissentThomas, joined by Roberts and Alito
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 2409a Quiet Title Act

Wilkins v. United States (Docket Number: 21-1164) [1] is a United States Supreme Court case that revolves around the dispute over the public use of Robbins Gulch Road, which serves as an access point to the Bitterroot National Forest in western Montana. The issue stems from the government's decision to allow public access to the road, resulting in disturbances and adverse effects on the adjacent private properties owned by Wilkins and other residents in the area.

Contents

Initially, the government had been granted an easement to facilitate access for government agents and contractors involved in timber harvesting. However, in 2006, the government extended an invitation to the general public to use the easement, leading to disruptions and incidents of vandalism, trespassing, and property theft, which significantly impacted the tranquility of the property owners in the area.

The petitioners argued that the scope of the easement exceeded the terms agreed upon previously and sought legal recourse through litigation. The district court dismissed the complaint, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the failure to file the claim before the expiration of the twelve-year statute of limitations under the Quiet Title Act. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, which was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the ruling, holding that the 12-year statute of limitations in section 2409a(g) of the Quiet Title Act is a” non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule”.

Background

The petitioners Larry (Wil) Wilkins and Jane Stanton lived along Robbins Gulch Road, a one-mile-long dirt road in western Montana, situated in the northern Rocky Mountains. [2] This road served as an access point linking a public highway to an entryway into the Bitterroot National Forest, a 1.6-million-acre expanse that permits timber harvesting and enables public recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking along an extensive network of 1,600 miles of trails. Wilkins, a military veteran and nature enthusiast, acquired his property adjacent to the forest in 2004, captivated by the area's ambiance. [3]

Approximately six decades ago, the previous landowners of the land on which Wilkins and Stanton currently reside granted the federal government an easement across their property to facilitate access for government agents and contractors, primarily those involved in timber harvesting, between the forest and the highway. The documentation regarding the government's acquisition of the easement explicitly specifies that the road was to be "...improved, used, operated, patrolled, and maintained as the Robbins Gulch Road, Project Number 446." [4] Furthermore, an accompanying letter outlined the "...purpose of the road..." as being used primarily for "...timber harvest." For numerous years, until 2006, Wilkins and Stanton attested that the government adhered to the terms stipulated in the deeds and the magnitude of its easement, and its use of the road did not encroach on their property. [3]

In 2006, the government placed a sign along the road stating "PUBLIC ACCESS THRU PRIVATE LANDS," essentially inviting the general public to use the government's easement for easier access to the national forest. As a result, increased vehicular activity led to disruptive noise, vandalism, trespassing, property theft, and soil erosion due to the unpaved road. One incident involved a hunter using the road who shot Wilkins' cat, and another driver intentionally ran over two of his neighbor's dogs. This led several of Wilkins' neighbors to leave due to the loss of peace and tranquility on their properties. [5] [6]

Despite Wilkins' persistent requests for the Forest Service to address the issues stemming from public use of the road, the Forest Service maintained that its easement empowered the government to grant public access to the road. Subsequently, Wilkins sought legal recourse under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, asserting that the government had exceeded the scope of the easement by allowing public use of the road. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the failure to file the claim within the Act's twelve-year statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal, prompting Wilkins to appeal to the Supreme Court. [3]

Arguments of the petitioner

The petitioners contended that the Act's statute-of-limitations provision does not present a jurisdictional barrier preventing them from pursuing their claim against the government, but instead constitutes a "claim-processing rule" necessitating the moving party to demonstrate the statute of limitations and calling for the court to evaluate conflicting claims concerning the purported waiver of the statute of limitations. [7]

Arguments of the respondent

The government's position is that the claim should be dismissed due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the claims are time-barred. This assertion is based on the failure to file the claim within the Act's twelve-year statute of limitations. [8]

Holding

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled that the 12-year time limit for an action under the Quiet Title Act is not jurisdictional. The Court emphasized the difference between restrictions on the types of cases a court can hear, known as subject-matter jurisdiction, and "nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules" designed to ensure the orderly progress of litigation by requiring parties to follow specific procedural steps at designated times. The Court ultimately found the Government's argument about legislative acquiescence to be unpersuasive, determining that Section 2409a(g) represents a “nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule”. This means that although the time limit rule is mandatory, it does not affect the court's jurisdiction and that the case can still be heard if the statute of limitations is waived or tolled. By ruling that the time limit is not jurisdictional, the Court left open the possibility that procedural defenses such as the doctrines of waiver or estoppel could allow a court to hear a case even if it was filed late. As a result, the Court overturned the previous judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. [9] [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking occurs when governmental regulations limit the use of private property to such a degree that the landowner is effectively deprived of all economically reasonable use or value of their property. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution governments are required to pay just compensation for such takings. The amendment is incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case stemming from the American Civil War (1861–1865) where Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase held that a Congressional statute "impairing the effect of a pardon, and thus infringing the constitutional power of the Executive" and was unconstitutional.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preamble to the United States Constitution</span> Introductory statement of the US Constitutions fundamental purposes

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, beginning with the words We the People, is a brief introductory statement of the US Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. Courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), was a court case that took place in the Supreme Court of the United States. It invoked the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is related to the issue of eminent domain.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest law firm established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality and opportunity, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.

An easement is a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another, B". An easement is a property right and type of incorporeal property in itself at common law in most jurisdictions.

Nullum tempus occurrit regi, also abbreviated to nullum tempus, is a common law doctrine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Wilderness Act of 1984</span>

The California Wilderness Act of 1984 is a federal law, passed by the United States Congress on September 28, 1984, that authorized the addition of over 3 million acres (12,000 km2) within the state of California to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Conservation activist George Whitmore later credited the Act with establishing "the longest stretch of de facto wilderness in the lower 48 states."

In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional. The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public-easement condition was a legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by the home renovation, even though the easement would not have created any additional public view of the ocean. The Court held that in evaluating such claims, there must be an "essential nexus" between a legitimate state interest and the actual conditions of the permit being issued.

United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must file an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case in which the Court ruled on the applicability of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. This area, also known as the High Country, was used by the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes as a religious site.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.

McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that actual innocence, if proven, is sufficient to circumvent the one-year statute of limitations for petitioners to appeal their conviction enacted within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article Three of the United States Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. 175 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.

References

  1. "Office of the Solicitor General | Wilkins v. United States | United States Department of Justice". www.justice.gov. 2022-11-16. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  2. "WILKINS v. UNITED STATES". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  3. 1 2 3 "Wilkins v. United States". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  4. "Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  5. Hasan, Zayn (2022-06-15). "Supreme Court Report: Wilkins v. United States, 21-1164". National Association of Attorneys General. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  6. "Victory for Property Rights in Highly Technical Supreme Court Decision". Reason.com. 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  7. "Claim against Attorney for Money Collected. Limitations. Running of Statute". The Virginia Law Register. 15 (1): 78. May 1909. doi:10.2307/1103412. ISSN   1547-1357.
  8. "Wilkins v. United States". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  9. "Wilkins v. United States". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  10. "Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. ___ (2023)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-08-09.