October Term 2014 · Docket 13-1075
Does equitable tolling apply to the Federal Tort Claims Act time limit?
The dispute centers on whether courts can extend the strict deadline for suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Prelogar argued Congress did not want equitable tolling to apply.
Mr. Rosenkranz argued the administrative presentment requirement supports the government's position.
Justice Roberts asked if modern statutes would interpret similar words as jurisdictional bars.
Justice Scalia asked if prior notions of congressional intent were wrong at the time.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 12-30 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 12-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 10-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 44-42 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 44-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-28 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 44-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 44-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-44 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 6-8
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case asks if the equitable tolling doctrine applies to the Federal Tort Claims Act statute of limitations. The government argues Congress intended a strict deadline. The plaintiff argues equitable principles should allow extensions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 44-42 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 44-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-16
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 10, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to reject equitable tolling for this statute.
The plaintiff wants the Court to allow equitable tolling for this statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 44-42 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 44-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-16
What each side says
The government argues Congress intended a strict, non-extendable deadline for claims.
The plaintiff argues equitable principles should permit extending the deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 44-42 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 44-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-16
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if Congress intended to benefit the federal employee or the plaintiff.
Justice Kagan asked about the opposing side's account of the Westfall Act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 12-30 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 12-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 10-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-28 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 44-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 44-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-44 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 6-8
Why it matters
This case determines whether federal employees face strict deadlines for personal injury claims. It clarifies the scope of sovereign immunity waivers. It affects how courts interpret statutory time limits involving the government.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 44-42 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 44-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-16
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 12-30 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 12-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 10-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-28 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 44-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 44-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 8-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-44 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 6-8
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 44-42 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 44-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 44-42 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 44-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-16
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.