United States v. Kwai Fun Wong
Headline: Limits on suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act are held subject to equitable tolling, allowing some late claims and making it easier for people with valid excuses to sue the Government.
Holding: Section 2401(b)’s time limits are subject to equitable tolling; courts may toll both the FTCA’s two-year and six-month filing deadlines when fair reasons justify delay.
- Allows courts to excuse some late claims against the federal government for valid reasons.
- May revive dismissed claims while lower courts decide if tolling applies.
- Leaves final outcomes to lower courts to determine whether tolling is warranted.
Summary
Background
Two people sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) after alleged wrongdoing. In Wong’s case, she says immigration officials falsely imprisoned her in 1999; she presented an administrative claim but could not get her district court amendment entered before the six-month court filing deadline. In June’s case, a wrongful-death claim from a 2005 crash was presented to the Federal Highway Administration more than two years after the accident. Lower courts dismissed both FTCA suits as untimely.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the FTCA’s two-year agency deadline and six-month post-denial court deadline are jurisdictional or can be equitably tolled (paused for fair reasons). Relying on Irwin, the majority applied a rebuttable presumption that time limits can be tolled unless Congress clearly made them jurisdictional. The Court found §2401(b)’s text and context read like ordinary time limits, not a clear jurisdictional bar, and it rejected the Government’s arguments based on the phrase “shall be forever barred” and on sovereign-immunity concerns. The Court therefore held the FTCA time limits are nonjurisdictional and may be equitably tolled. The Ninth Circuit judgments were affirmed and the cases remanded.
Real world impact
The decision lets courts consider fair excuses for missed FTCA deadlines, so some claims previously dismissed for lateness may proceed. The ruling does not decide the merits of any claim; on remand lower courts must determine case-by-case whether tolling applies. That means outcomes for the two claimants remain dependent on further district-court factfinding.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Alito (joined by Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas) dissented, arguing historical practice and long-standing precedent treat these FTCA deadlines as jurisdictional and would bar equitable tolling.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?