John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States
The Court ruled that judges in the Court of Federal Claims must check on their own whether a lawsuit against the government was filed on time, even if the government never raises the issue or drops it.
The decision keeps in place a strict, unwaivable filing deadline for suits against the federal government, rejecting a mining company's argument that a more flexible, government-friendly approach from a later case had already replaced the old rule.
How it got here: The Court of Federal Claims ruled for the government on the merits; the Federal Circuit, prompted by an amicus brief, ruled the suit untimely on its own; the company sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A mining company with a 50-year lease sued the government, claiming that Environmental Protection Agency activities on its leased land — including building and moving fences — amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its leasehold rights. The government initially argued the claims were filed too late, but later effectively dropped that argument and instead won the case on the underlying merits.
The question before the Court
Could a federal court raise a lawsuit's filing deadline on its own, even after the government had given up that defense?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that judges handling lawsuits in the Court of Federal Claims must consider on their own whether a suit was filed on time, even if the government never raises the issue or expressly gives it up. The Court explained that this particular filing deadline is not an ordinary defense a defendant can waive; it is a stricter, "jurisdictional" limit tied to the conditions under which people are allowed to sue the government at all.
The Court reached this conclusion because it had already read this exact statute this way in a long line of decisions dating back to 1883, and nothing since — including a later ruling allowing flexible deadlines in a different law — had actually overturned that interpretation. Because the older cases were clear and workable, and Congress had never stepped in to change them, the Court declined the mining company's invitation to abandon them now.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
People and companies suing the federal government in the Court of Federal Claims — over things like property takings or contract disputes — must file within six years no matter what the government's lawyers say or do, and courts will police that deadline themselves. This makes it harder to revive a claim through a technical slip by government litigators.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, so the ruling stands: the Federal Circuit's judgment against the mining company is affirmed, with no remand. Going forward, the Court of Federal Claims's six-year filing deadline in claims against the government continues to be treated as an absolute, jurisdictional bar that judges must enforce on their own, regardless of the government's litigation choices.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether other similarly worded federal deadlines, such as 28 U.S.C. §2401(a), are also "jurisdictional" — Justice Ginsburg's dissent noted this left lower courts without guidance on that separate, disputed statute.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens argued that Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs had already effectively overruled Kendall, Finn, and Soriano by adopting a general rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling for suits against the government, even though Irwin never cited Kendall or Finn by name. He would have held that the Federal Circuit had no basis to declare the company's suit untimely, since Irwin's rule should control here.
Dissent — Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg joined Stevens's dissent but wrote separately to argue that even if Irwin had not already overruled the older cases, this was an appropriate case to overrule them now. She pointed to a genuine circuit split over whether a similar deadline statute, §2401(a), is jurisdictional, and argued the government showed no reliance on the old rule that would justify keeping it.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court distinguished two categories of statutes of limitations: ordinary ones that protect defendants and can be waived or paused for fairness reasons (called "equitable tolling"), and a stricter, more absolute kind that serves a broader system-wide purpose, such as limiting when people can sue the government — courts label these "jurisdictional."
- Tracing a chain of decisions back to 1883 (Kendall v. United States), the Court found it had consistently treated the Court of Federal Claims's six-year filing deadline as this stricter, jurisdictional type, meaning judges must raise it themselves even when no party argues it.
- The Court concluded that a 1948 wording change to the statute did not alter this rule, because nothing showed Congress intended to change the underlying law when it recodified the statute's language.
- The Court rejected the mining company's argument that a later decision, Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, had already overturned this older line of cases, reasoning that Irwin involved a different statute the Court had never definitively interpreted before, unlike the settled deadline here.
- Applying stare decisis — the principle that courts should generally stick with their own past decisions — the Court found no sufficient reason to overturn the older cases, since they had not produced unworkable results and Congress had never moved to change them despite having the chance.
- The Court warned that reopening settled precedent merely because a majority might now see it differently would risk broader instability in the law, so it left the existing jurisdictional rule in place.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Kendall v. United States (107 U. S. 123)
The Court relied on this 1883 case as still-good authority requiring judges to raise filing deadlines on their own.
Reaffirms Soriano v. United States (352 U. S. 270)
The Court treated this case as continuing to establish that the filing deadline cannot be waived or tolled.
Distinguishes Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs (498 U. S. 89)
The Court said this case, about a different statute, did not overturn the older rule for this specific deadline.
Limits Franconia Associates v. United States (536 U. S. 129)
The Court said language in this case addressed only when claims accrue, not whether the deadline can be waived.