Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez
134 S. Ct. 1224
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- The Hague Convention requires prompt return of a child wrongfully removed to another Contracting State; Article 12 creates a rule: if a petition is filed within 1 year of removal, the court "shall order the return forthwith"; if after 1 year, return still may be ordered unless the child is "now settled" in the new environment.
- Montoya Alvarez (mother) left London with the child in November 2008, later traveled to and settled in New York; Lozano (father) did not locate them until November 2010 (>16 months after removal) and filed a Hague/ICARA return petition in SDNY.
- District Court found wrongful removal and that Lozano was exercising custody but denied return because the petition was filed after one year and the child was "settled" in New York; the court also held Article 12’s 1‑year period is not equitably tollable.
- Second Circuit affirmed the decision and held Article 12’s 1‑year rule is not subject to equitable tolling.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Article 12 one‑year period is subject to equitable tolling when the abducting parent conceals the child; the Court unanimously held equitable tolling is not available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lozano) | Defendant's Argument (Montoya Alvarez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 12’s 1‑year period is subject to equitable tolling when the abducting parent conceals the child | Tolling should apply because concealment prevented discovery and filing within one year; without tolling concealment will encourage abduction | The Convention’s text and structure preclude tolling; Article 12 permits post‑year return inquiries into the child’s settlement | Not subject to equitable tolling; Court affirmed Second Circuit |
| Whether a treaty like the Hague Convention carries a presumption of equitable tolling analogous to U.S. statutes of limitations | The U.S. background presumption of tolling should apply to the Convention | Treaties are contracts among sovereigns; U.S. domestic presumptions apply only if shared by signatories | No general presumption of equitable tolling for treaties absent shared international practice |
| Whether Article 12’s 1‑year period is functionally a statute of limitations (thus presumptively tollable) | Labeling not dispositive; the period should be treated like a limitations period and tolled | Article 12 is not a statute of limitations because the return remedy remains available after one year and the period does not create repose or certainty of rights | The Court held Article 12’s 1‑year period is not a statute of limitations |
| Whether other treaty provisions or domestic law (e.g., Article 18/34 or ICARA) permit U.S. courts to apply equitable tolling anyway | Article 18/34 and domestic implementing law allow courts to apply "other law" such as equitable tolling to secure return | Equitable tolling is a federal equitable doctrine that can be applied only if the treaty drafters intended it; ICARA does not alter the Convention’s text | Court rejected applying equitable tolling via Article 18/34 or ICARA absent treaty intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (explains Convention’s core purpose of return to habitual residence)
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (Congress drafts against common‑law background principles)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946) (historical origins of equitable tolling)
- Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43 (2002) (presumption of equitable tolling for limitations‑type periods)
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (treaties read to ascertain shared intent of sovereign parties)
- United States v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U.S. 494 (1900) (interpret treaties by text and context to ascertain parties’ intent)
- Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217 (1996) (treaty interpretation requires examining shared principles among signatories)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling is a matter of statutory intent and background law)
- Chan v. Korean Air Lines, 490 U.S. 122 (1989) (courts should not amend treaties under the guise of interpretation)