Harrow v. Department of Defense

Background

A Department of Defense employee, Stuart Harrow, challenged a six-day furlough before the Merit Systems Protection Board after an administrative judge upheld the action. Harrow sought review, but the Board lost its quorum and could not decide for over five years. When the Board finally issued a final decision in May 2022, it sent notice to an old work email address that had stopped forwarding messages. Harrow did not learn of the decision until after the 60‑day appeal window had passed and then filed his appeal late.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the statute that requires appeals to be filed “within 60 days” should be treated as a strict jurisdictional bar that admits no exceptions. Writing for a unanimous Court, the opinion explained that most filing deadlines are not jurisdictional unless Congress clearly says so. The Court rejected the Government’s reliance on another statute saying appeals lie “pursuant to” the 60‑day rule, explaining that phrase usually means “under” or “based on,” not strict compliance. The exception in Bowles for appeals between courts did not apply here. The Court therefore held the 60‑day limit is not jurisdictional and vacated the Federal Circuit’s dismissal.

Real world impact

The ruling allows appeals courts to consider equitable exceptions—like tolling—when late filings result from circumstances such as agency delay or missed notice. The Supreme Court did not decide whether equitable tolling applies to Harrow; it left that factual and legal determination to the Federal Circuit on remand. For now, some federal employees who missed filing deadlines may get a chance to have their appeals heard.