Harrow v. Department of Defense
601 U.S. 480
SCOTUS2024Background
- Stuart Harrow, a Department of Defense employee, contested a six-day furlough before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
- After more than five years of delay due to a lack of quorum, the MSPB ruled against Harrow in 2022.
- Harrow missed the 60-day statutory deadline to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because he was not notified of the decision due to an outdated email address.
- Harrow requested the Federal Circuit accept his late appeal via equitable tolling, citing extenuating circumstances.
- The Federal Circuit denied his request, holding the 60-day statutory deadline was a non-waivable "jurisdictional requirement."
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide if the 60-day deadline is jurisdictional or subject to exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 60-day deadline jurisdictional? | Deadline should be excusable for equitable reasons; not jurisdictional. | Deadline is a strict jurisdictional bar; no excusable exception. | Not jurisdictional; deadline is subject to equitable exceptions. |
| Effect of missing the 60-day deadline | Should allow for equitable tolling due to lack of notice. | Federal Circuit lacked authority to accept late appeal. | Failure to meet deadline does not deprive court of jurisdiction. |
| Statutory interpretation of "pursuant to" | Filing need only be made under the relevant statute, not in strict compliance. | "Pursuant to" means strict conformance, including timely filing. | "Pursuant to" references statutory basis, not strict compliance. |
| Application of Bowles exception | Bowles applies only to appeals between Article III courts. | Bowles supports treating the deadline as jurisdictional. | Bowles exception does not apply to agency appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (standard for court syllabi)
- Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. 199 (clear statement rule for jurisdictional requirements)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (filing deadlines presumptively non-jurisdictional)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (filing deadlines promote order but not jurisdictional boundaries)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (jurisdictional time limits between courts—a narrow exception)
- Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 594 U.S. 559 (statutory deadlines and judicial exceptions)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. 145 (most time bars are non-jurisdictional)
- BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (interpretation of "pursuant to" in removal statutes)