United States v. Kwai Fun Wong. United States

Background

One case involves Kwai Fun Wong, who says the Immigration and Naturalization Service falsely imprisoned her in 1999; she presented an administrative FTCA claim, the agency denied it in December 2001, and she tried to add a federal tort claim but missed the six-month filing deadline after a delayed district-court order. The other involves Marlene June, who sued after a deadly 2005 highway crash, waited until 2010 to present a claim to the Federal Highway Administration, and was told her two-year deadline had passed. Lower courts split over whether those deadlines could be tolled.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the FTCA’s two-year and six-month filing limits strip courts of power (making them “jurisdictional”) or are ordinary deadlines that judges can pause in fairness. Applying prior decisions, the Court said Congress did not clearly make § 2401(b) jurisdictional. Its words look like ordinary time limits and are separate from the statute that gives courts power to hear FTCA claims. Because Congress gave no clear statement to bar tolling, the Court held those limits are nonjurisdictional and may be equitably tolled in appropriate cases.

Real world impact

The ruling lets judges consider fairness when people miss FTCA deadlines and could allow some late claims against the federal government to proceed. The decision is not a final win for the claimants: the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and sent the cases back so trial courts can decide, on the facts, whether tolling applies.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the old understanding of similar government-time limits shows Congress meant these deadlines to be absolute and not subject to tolling; that view would have required reversal.