WILKINS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
No. 21-1164
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
March 28, 2023
598 U. S. ____ (2023)
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2022
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
WILKINS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1164. Argued November 30, 2022—Decided March 28, 2023
Held: Section 2409a(g) is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. Pp. 3-12.
(a) Jurisdiction is a word of many meanings. This Court has emphasized the distinction between “the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction)” and “nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, which seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times.” Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U. S. ___, ___. Nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules generally include a range of “threshold requirements that claimants must complete, or exhaust, before filing a lawsuit.” Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 166. Jurisdictional bars—which may be raised by any party at any time during the proceedings and which are required to be
Given the risk of disruption and waste that accompanies the jurisdictional label, a procedural requirement will be construed as jurisdictional only if Congress “clearly states” that it is. Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. ___, ___. To determine whether the statutory text “plainly show[s] that Congress imbued a procedural bar with jurisdictional consequences,” courts apply “traditional tools of statutory construction.” United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U. S. 402, 410.
Section 2409a(g) lacks a jurisdictional clear statement, and nothing about
(b) None of the three decisions of this Court on which the Government relies—Block, 461 U. S. 273, United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834, and United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38—definitively interpreted
Block is a textbook “drive-by jurisdictional rulin[g].” Id., at 511. The Government points to a statement in that opinion‘s conclusion that if the Quiet Title Act‘s time limit
Like Block, Mottaz contains no discussion of whether the Quiet Title Act‘s 12-year time bar was technically jurisdictional. Instead, the Court decided which of two possible time bars applied and, having determined it was the Quiet Title Act‘s 12-year limit, concluded that the plaintiff had notice over 12 years before she sued. Neither step in the Court‘s analysis “turn[ed] on” whether any time limits were “technically jurisdictional.” Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 512. Once again, general statements in the opinion about waivers of immunity cannot change this basic fact.
Finally, in Beggerly, the Court carefully analyzed whether the text and context of
These three cases point in one direction: This Court has never definitively interpreted
13 F. 4th 791, reversed and remanded.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21-1164
LARRY STEVEN WILKINS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[March 28, 2023]
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Larry Steven Wilkins and Jane Stanton wanted quiet titles and a quiet road. Wilkins and Stanton, the petitioners here,
Petitioners sued over the scope of the easement under the Quiet Title Act, which allows challenges to the United States’ rights in real property. Invoking the Act‘s 12-year time limit,
I
Robbins Gulch Road runs through about a mile of private property. Petitioners acquired their properties along the road in 1991 and 2004. Back in 1962, petitioners’ predecessors in interest had granted the United States an easement for the road. The Government contends that the easement includes public access, which petitioners dispute. On petitioners’ telling, the easement does not allow access to the general public and requires the Government to maintain and patrol the road.
In 2018, petitioners brought suit under the Quiet Title Act. The Government moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the Act‘s 12-year time limit had expired. Under the Act, “[a]ny civil action . . . , except for an action brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued.”
The District Court agreed with the Government and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 13 F. 4th 791 (2021). Applying Circuit precedent, the Court of Appeals held that this Court had already interpreted
II
A
“Jurisdiction, this Court has observed, is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 510 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, this Court has emphasized the distinction between limits on “the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction)” and “nonjurisdictional
To police this jurisdictional line, this Court will “treat a procedural requirement as jurisdictional only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 3) (quoting Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 515). This principle of construction is not a burden courts impose on Congress. To the contrary, this principle seeks to avoid judicial interpretations that undermine Congress’ judgment. Loosely treating procedural requirements as jurisdictional risks undermining the very reason Congress enacted them.
Procedural rules often “seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation” within our adversarial system. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U. S. 428, 435 (2011). Limits on subject-matter jurisdiction, in contrast, have a unique potential to disrupt the orderly course of litigation. “Brand-ing a rule as going to a court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction alters the normal operation of our adversarial system.” Id., at 434. “For purposes of efficiency and fairness, our legal system is replete with rules” like forfeiture, which require parties to raise arguments themselves and to do so at certain times. Ibid. Jurisdictional bars, however, “may be raised at any time” and courts have a duty to consider them sua sponte. Ibid. When such eleventh-hour jurisdictional objections prevail post-trial or on appeal, “many months of work on the part of the attorneys and the court may be wasted.” Id., at 435. Similarly, doctrines like waiver and estoppel ensure efficiency and fairness by precluding parties from raising arguments they had previously disavowed. Because these doctrines do not apply to jurisdictional objections, parties can disclaim such an objection, only to resurrect it when things go poorly for them on the merits. Ibid.
Given the risk of disruption and waste that accompanies the jurisdictional label, courts will not lightly apply it to procedures Congress enacted to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. Courts will also not assume that in creating a mundane claims-processing rule, Congress made it “unique in our adversarial system” by allowing parties to raise it at any time and requiring courts to consider it sua sponte. Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S. 145, 153 (2013). Instead, “traditional tools of statutory construction must plainly show that Congress imbued a procedural bar with jurisdictional consequences.” United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U. S. 402, 410 (2015).
Under this clear statement rule, the analysis of
B
The Government does not focus on the text of
This Court has made clear that it will not undo a “definitive earlier interpretation” of a statutory provision as jurisdictional without due regard for principles of stare decisis. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. 130, 138 (2008). At the same time, however, “[c]ourts, including this Court, have more than occasionally misused the term ‘jurisdictional’ to refer to nonjurisdictional prescriptions.” Fort Bend, 587 U. S., at ___, n. 4 (slip op., at 5-6, n. 4) (some internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The mere fact that this Court previously described something “without elaboration” as jurisdictional therefore does not end the inquiry. Henderson, 562 U. S., at 437. To separate the wheat from the chaff, this Court has asked if the prior decision addressed whether a provision is “technically jurisdictional“—whether it truly operates as a limit on a court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction—and whether anything in the decision “turn[ed] on that characterization.” Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 512 (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 91 (1998)); see also Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 395 (1982) (looking to whether “the legal character of the requirement was . . . at issue“). If a decision simply states that “the court is dismissing ‘for lack of jurisdiction’ when some threshold fact has not been established,” it is understood as a “drive-by jurisdictional rulin[g]” that receives “no precedential effect.” Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 511 (some internal quotation marks omitted).
The Government begins with Block, 461 U. S. 273. The case presented “two separate issues” about the Quiet Title Act, neither of which was whether the 12-year limit was jurisdictional. Id., at 276. First, the Court held that the Act was “the exclusive procedure” for challenging “the title of the United States to real property.” Id., at 276-277, 286. Second, the Court held that the 12-year limit applied to States. Id., at 277. It was only in the opinion‘s conclusion that, in remanding, the Court remarked that if the time limit applied, “the courts below had no jurisdiction to inquire into the merits.” Id., at 292. The opinion contains no discussion of whether the provision was “technically jurisdictional” or what in the case would have “turn[ed] on that characterization.” Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 512 (quoting Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 91). There is nothing more than an “unrefined dispositio[n]” stating that a “threshold fact” must “b[e] established” for there to be “jurisdiction.” 546 U. S., at 511 (internal quotation marks omitted). This is a textbook “drive-by jurisdictional rulin[g]” that Arbaugh held “should be accorded no precedential effect” as to whether a limit is jurisdictional. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In an effort to endow a fleeting statement with lasting significance, the Government and the dissent invoke historical context. Block described the Act‘s time limit as “a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity.” 461 U. S., at 287. Block never stated, however, that the Act‘s time limit was therefore truly a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction. Yet according to the Government and the dissent, this went without saying because the case law at the time was “unmistakably” clear that conditions on waivers of immunity were subject-matter jurisdictional. Post, at 9.
This reading is undermined by the very history on which it draws. In Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990), the Court surveyed the case law about whether “time limits in suits against the Government” are subject to “equitable tolling, waiver, and estoppel.” Id., at 94. If associating time limits with waivers of sovereign immunity clearly made those limits jurisdictional, equitable exceptions would be just as clearly foreclosed. Instead, Irwin described the Court‘s approach to this question as “ad hoc” and “unpredictab[le],” “leaving open” whether equitable exceptions were available in any given case. Id., at 94-95. Accordingly, even if “a statute of limitations [was] a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity and thus must be strictly construed,” this still “d[id] not answer the question whether equitable tolling can be applied to this statute of limitations.” Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S. 467, 479 (1986). The Court instead analyzed the specific statutory scheme at issue, with varying results. Ibid. (citing Honda v. Clark, 386 U. S. 484 (1967)).
Block itself reflected the ambivalent nature of time limits for suits against the Government. Block recognized that “we should not construe such a time-bar
Next, the Government offers United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834 (1986). Once again, the question presented was not whether the Quiet Title Act‘s 12-year time limit was technically jurisdictional. The Court instead had to decide which of two possible statutory time bars applied. Id., at 841. This analysis proceeded in two steps. First, the Court asked which of several federal statutes—“the Quiet Title Act; the Allotment Acts; [or] the Tucker Act“—was the “source of . . . jurisdiction” based on the nature of the plaintiff‘s claim and the relief sought. Ibid. (citations omitted). The Court explained that the Quiet Title Act applied because it was “the exclusive means by which adverse claim-ants could challenge the United States’ title to real property,” and the plaintiff‘s claim fell “within the Act‘s scope.” Id., at 841-842 (quoting Block, 461 U. S., at 286). Second, the Court “then determine[d] whether [the] suit was brought within the relevant limitations period.” Mottaz, 476 U. S., at 841. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had notice over 12 years before she sued, and “[h]er claim [was] therefore barred.” Id., at 843-844. Neither step in the Court‘s analysis “turn[ed] on” whether any time limits were “technically jurisdictional.” Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 512 (quoting Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 91).
General statements in the opinion about waivers of immunity cannot change this basic fact. At the outset of its analysis, the Court observed that “the terms of [the United States‘] waiver of sovereign immunity define the extent of the court‘s jurisdiction” and that “‘a statute of limitations . . . constitutes a condition on the waiver.‘” Mottaz, 476 U. S., at 841 (quoting Block, 461 U. S., at 287). Neither of these statements, however, played a role in determining which statute applied or whether the plaintiff brought her claim within 12 years after it accrued. There is also no indication in the opinion that the parties raised tolling or other equitable exceptions. As such, “‘the legal character’ of the time limit was never ‘at issue.‘” Reed Elsevier, 559 U. S., at 169, n. 8 (quoting Zipes, 455 U. S., at 395).
The Government also points to Mottaz‘s procedural background section. Buried in a paragraph recounting a tangled procedural history, the Court remarked that the Government raised the Quiet Title Act, “apparently for the first time,” in a petition for rehearing. 476 U. S., at 840. This supposedly reveals that the Court sua sponte and sub silentio raised, considered, and rejected an argument that the Government had forfeited the Quiet Title Act‘s time limit, doing so all because the time limit was jurisdictional. Yet a background section is an unlikely place for such a ruling. This is particularly true where, as the word “apparently” indicates, the Court did not pause over its passing
Finally, there is United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38 (1998). The Court in Beggerly addressed whether
All three cases therefore point in one direction: This Court has never definitively interpreted
All told, neither this Court‘s precedents nor Congress’ actions established that
*
Section 2409a(g) is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. The Court of Appeals’ contrary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21-1164
LARRY STEVEN WILKINS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[March 28, 2023]
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States. But, in the Quiet Title Act of 1972, Congress waived this immunity and consented to suits against the United States in order to determine the status of disputed property.
In holding that
I
This Court‘s skepticism of the jurisdictional character of procedural bars does not extend to conditions on a waiver of sovereign immunity. In the context of a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court presumes that procedural limitations are jurisdictional. The Act‘s time bar is one such provision, and, as such, this Court should interpret it as a jurisdictional bar to suit.
As a sovereign, the United States “is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court‘s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 586 (1941); see also Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156, 160 (1981); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 212 (1983) (describing this principle as “axiomatic“). Consequently, “[s]overeign immunity is by nature jurisdictional.” Henderson v. United States, 517 U. S. 654, 675 (1996) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). This principle is longstanding, and the majority does not dispute it. See ante, at 7-8.
“A necessary corollary of this rule,” however, “is that when Congress attaches conditions to legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, those conditions must be strictly observed, and exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied.” Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 287 (1983); see also United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 34 (1992) (stating that a waiver of sovereign immunity “must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign” and “not enlarge[d] . . . beyond what the language requires” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, “in many cases this Court has read procedural rules embodied in statutes waiving immunity strictly, with an eye to effectuating a restrictive legislative purpose when Congress relinquishes sovereign immunity.” Honda v. Clark, 386 U. S. 484, 501 (1967). In United States v. Dalm, 494 U. S. 596 (1990), the Court reaffirmed this “settled principl[e]” in the specific context of “[a] statute of limitations requiring that a suit against the Government be brought within a certain time period.” Id., at 608. Such a requirement, the Court explained, “is one of” the “terms of [the United States‘] consent to be sued” and, therefore, “define[s] th[e] court‘s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” Ibid. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
Those straightforward principles resolve this case. The Quiet Title Act partially waives the immunity of the United States by granting federal district courts “exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions under section 2409a to quiet title to an estate or interest in real property in which an interest is claimed by the United States.”
These provisions carefully delineate the scope of the Act‘s limited waiver of sovereign immunity, establishing conditions on which the United States has consented to be sued. The United States has not, for example, consented to a jury trial or to be sued on an adverse possession theory. Similarly, and just as critically, it has not consented to be sued (except by a State) once the 12-year statute of limitations has passed.
The majority acknowledges that these restrictions must be strictly construed. See ante, at 8. Yet, it concludes that the time bar should not be considered jurisdictional. In another context, the majority‘s conclusion is arguably plausible. But, in this context, it is simply incorrect.
With no answer to the Court‘s longstanding view that conditions on waivers of sovereign immunity are jurisdictional, the majority seeks refuge in Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990). Ante, at 7-8. Irwin considered whether equitable tolling should apply to the time to file an employment-discrimination lawsuit against the Government under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, the Court reasoned that “[t]ime requirements in lawsuits between private litigants are customarily subject to ‘equitable tolling,‘” and that “[o]nce Congress has made a waiver [of sovereign immunity], . . . making the rule of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the Government, in the same way that it is applicable to private suits, amounts to little, if any, broadening of the congressional waiver.” Irwin, 498 U. S., at 95. It thus concluded that “[s]uch a principle is likely to be a realistic assessment of legislative intent as well as a practically useful principle of interpretation.” Ibid.
The majority suggests that Irwin stands for the proposition that a condition on a waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed, but then goes on to argue that it is not necessarily jurisdictional. Ante, at 8. However, our decision in United States v. Williams, 514 U. S. 527 (1995), decided five years after Irwin, demonstrates that statutes of limitations in suits brought against the United States are no less jurisdictional now than they were before Irwin. In Williams, the Court cited Dalm‘s holding that failure to file a claim against the Government for a federal tax refund within the statute-of-limitations period operates as a jurisdictional bar to suit, and the Court reaffirmed that a statute of limitations “narrow[s] the waiver of sovereign immunity.” 514 U. S., at 534, n. 7 (citing 494 U. S., at 602).1 Irwin, thus, does not disrupt this Court‘s long held understanding that conditions on waivers of sovereign immunity are presumptively jurisdictional.
II
Regardless of whether conditions on waivers of sovereign immunity remain jurisdictional post-Irwin, we have said that, where the Court has offered a “definitive earlier interpretation” of a statutory time bar as jurisdictional, we will continue to treat it as jurisdictional unless and until Congress directs otherwise. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. 130, 137-138 (2008); see also United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U. S. 402, 416 (2015) (reaffirming John R. Sand‘s rule). And, we have emphasized that Irwin “does not imply revisiting past precedents.” John R. Sand, 552 U. S., at 137.
The John R. Sand standard is amply met here. This Court concluded in Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273 (1983), and again in United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834 (1986), that compliance with the Quiet Title Act‘s 12-year time bar is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Block considered whether the Act‘s statute of limitations applied to state litigants.2 There, the Government had argued that the plaintiffs’ failure to sue within the 12-year deadline established by the statute meant that the “district court lacked jurisdiction” to consider the plaintiffs’ claims. Brief for the Petitioners in Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, O. T. 1982, No. 81-2337, p. 5. In assessing this argument, the Court made clear that it understood the Act‘s statute of limitations to arise in the context of a waiver of sovereign immunity, discussing at some length the tradeoffs proposed as Congress deliberated over the scope of the Act. See 461 U. S., at 280-285. The Court also prominently invoked Sherwood and Lehman, cases discussing the jurisdictional nature of sovereign-immunity waivers, to explain why the limitations provision must be “strictly observed.” Block, 461 U. S., at 287. After concluding that States were not exempt from the time bar, the Court stated that, “[i]f North Dakota‘s suit is barred by [the statute of limitations], the courts below had no jurisdiction to inquire into the merits,” and it remanded for the lower courts to determine whether the suit was so barred. Id., at 292-293. This statement that the time bar went to “jurisdiction” was an integral part of the Court‘s instructions on remand. Moreover, on remand, the Eighth Circuit understood the Court to have used the term “jurisdiction” to refer to a court‘s authority to hear the case. See North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands v. Block, 789 F. 2d 1308, 1310 (CA8 1986) (noting that neither the Eighth Circuit nor the District Court had “‘jurisdiction to inquire into the merits‘” because the Act‘s “statute of limitations is jurisdictional“).
In Mottaz, three years after Block, the Court again considered the jurisdictional nature of the Act‘s time bar. In the lower courts, the Government initially defended against a “somewhat opaque” set of claims by relying on the general 6-year statute of limitations for actions against the United States,
In addressing these, the Court cited Sherwood for the proposition that, “[w]hen the United States consents to be sued, the terms of its waiver of sovereign immunity define the extent of the court‘s jurisdiction.” 476 U. S., at 841. It then quoted Block for the proposition that “‘[w]hen waiver legislation contains a statute of limitations, the limitations provision constitutes a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity,‘” treating Block as precedential on this point. 476 U. S., at 841. The Court also characterized the statute of limitations as a “central condition of the consent given by the Act.” Id., at 843 (citing Block, 461 U. S., at 283-285). As in Block, this reasoning was a critical and substantial part of the Court‘s opinion. The Court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff‘s claim was untimely and thus barred under the Act. 476 U. S., at 844. The Court further concluded that no other statute “conferred jurisdiction” on the lower courts to adjudicate her claim. Id., at 841; see also id., 844-851. In deciding the case, the Court noticeably did not engage in a forfeiture analysis, underscoring that it understood the Government‘s late-raised statute-of-limitations argument to be jurisdictional and, thus, capable of being raised at any point in the proceedings. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 514 (2006) (explaining that jurisdictional arguments cannot be forfeited).3
United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38 (1998), on which the majority relies, see ante, at 10-11, is not to the contrary. In that case, the Court considered whether the Quiet Title Act‘s time bar may be equitably tolled. After noting that the Court of Appeals had considered the statute of limitations jurisdictional, see Beggerly, 524 U. S., at 42, the Court turned to the language of the Act. The Court emphasized that the 12-year statute of limitations began to accrue when the litigants knew or should have known of the claim of the United States, and it observed that the provision‘s text “has already effectively allowed for equitable tolling.” Id., at 48 (citing Irwin, 498 U. S., at 96). “Given this fact, and the unusually generous nature of the [Act]‘s limitations time period,” the Court concluded that “extension of the statutory period by additional equitable tolling would be unwarranted.” 524 U. S., at 48-49. Thus, while Beggerly might be read to view the Act‘s time bar as potentially susceptible to tolling (and thus, by inference, nonjurisdictional), the Court did not hold that the bar actually could be tolled. Rather, the Court held the opposite. Beggerly is therefore, at best, ambiguous with respect to the jurisdictional nature of the time bar. As such, it does not overcome the Court‘s clear prior view set out in both Block and Mottaz.
*
The Quiet Title Act‘s statute of limitations functions as a condition on a waiver of sovereign immunity, and is therefore jurisdictional. This Court has repeatedly characterized the Act‘s time bar as jurisdictional, and that interpretation remains authoritative under John R. Sand. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.