Page:Wilkins v. United States (2023).pdf/23

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

8

WILKINS v. UNITED STATES

Thomas, J., dissenting

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).^[1]

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

↑ The majority suggests that United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834, may have (sub silentio) concluded that forfeiture did not apply in that case. See ante, at 10, and n. 5. But, presumably, such a conclusion would have merited mention in the Court’s opinion. To be sure, the majority notes that the Government had raised the statute of limitations “ ‘apparently for the first time’ ” in a petition for rehearing. Ante, at 9 (quoting Mottaz, 476 U. S., at 840 (emphasis added)). However, the use of the word “apparently” does not indicate that the Court “did not pause over its passing remark,” as the majority contends. See ante, at 9–10. To the contrary, it suggests that the Court did not need to conduct a forfeiture analysis, because the provision was jurisdictional in any event (and thus not subject to forfeiture).

[1] The majority suggests that United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834, may have (sub silentio) concluded that forfeiture did not apply in that case. See ante, at 10, and n. 5. But, presumably, such a conclusion would have merited mention in the Court’s opinion. To be sure, the majority notes that the Government had raised the statute of limitations “ ‘apparently for the first time’ ” in a petition for rehearing. Ante, at 9 (quoting Mottaz, 476 U. S., at 840 (emphasis added)). However, the use of the word “apparently” does not indicate that the Court “did not pause over its passing remark,” as the majority contends. See ante, at 9–10. To the contrary, it suggests that the Court did not need to conduct a forfeiture analysis, because the provision was jurisdictional in any event (and thus not subject to forfeiture).

[1]