562 U.S. 428
SCOTUS2011Background
- VA benefits claims adjudicated in a two-step process: regional office decision followed by Board de novo review.
- If the Board denies, veterans may seek review in the Veterans Court via a 120-day appeal deadline to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
- Henderson exceeded the 120-day deadline by 15 days; the Veterans Court initially dismissed, then reconsidered, and Bowles was decided during his proceedings.
- Bowles held that the 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) extension deadline is jurisdictional in ordinary civil appeals between courts, not necessarily in administrative-review settings.
- The Federal Circuit initially treated Bowles as controlling for Veterans Court deadlines, but the Supreme Court later analyzed whether the 120-day deadline is jurisdictional in this unique administrative scheme.
- The Court ultimately held the 120-day deadline is not jurisdictional, but remains a substantive claim-processing rule with potential exceptions on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 120-day Veterans Court appeal deadline jurisdictional? | Henderson argues Bowles applies; deadline is jurisdictional. | Government contends Bowles controls; deadline is jurisdictional for Veterans Court review. | Not jurisdictional. |
| Should Bowles control the Veterans Court deadline? | Bowles should govern as to jurisdictional treatment of deadlines. | Bowles is distinguishable; Veterans Court context differs from ordinary civil appeals. | Bowles not controlling for this context. |
| Is § 7266(a) a jurisdictional or a claim-processing rule? | Deadline is jurisdictional under categorical readings used in some contexts. | Deadline is a claim-processing rule given context and structure of Veterans benefits review. | § 7266(a) is a claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional. |
| What is the proper interpretive framework for determining jurisdiction here? | Assistance-like, veteran-friendly scheme suggests non-jurisdictional treatment. | Consistency with general jurisdictional analysis supports treating some deadlines as jurisdictional when clearly indicated by statute. | Context favors non-jurisdictional interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (clarified jurisdictional nature of certain time limits in appeals between courts)
- Bowles, supra, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (see above)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (distinguishes jurisdictional labels from claim-processing rules)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (readily administrable bright-line approach to jurisdictional questions)
- Union Pacific R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 558 U.S. 67 (2009) (limits on labeling mandatory rules as jurisdictional)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (distinguishes claim-processing from jurisdictional rules)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (see above)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (per curiam; addresses timing in criminal contexts related to jurisdiction)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) (role of procedural rules in veterans and related benefit determinations)
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986) (SSA disability review not jurisdictional; social security context relevance)