October Term 2023 · Docket 23-21
Does a missed filing deadline strip the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction?
the sides that brought the case argue the deadline is a procedural rule. The government claims it is a jurisdictional limit.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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. Brown argued Congress granted the Federal Circuit jurisdiction. She cited Section 1295(a)(9) and Section 7703(b)(1).
Mr. Davis argued the Court has clarified the law. He stated procedural rules are not jurisdictional without clear congressional intent.
Justice Sotomayor asked if courts of appeals are ill suited for factual findings. She questioned the government's argument on this point.
Justice Jackson asked if the Federal Circuit precedent holds the deadline is not subject to equitable forfeiture. She referenced specific case law.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 47-53 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 47-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-51 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-53 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether a specific filing deadline controls court jurisdiction. the sides that brought the case seek to preserve their appeal. The government wants the appeal dismissed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-51 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-53 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-53
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 25, 2024.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to reverse the dismissal. They argue the deadline is a procedural rule.
The government wants the Court to affirm the dismissal. It argues the deadline limits jurisdiction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-51 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-53 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-53
What each side says
the sides that brought the case claim the clear statement rule applies. They argue Congress did not clearly state the deadline is jurisdictional.
The government claims the deadline is a jurisdictional limit. It argues courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-51 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-53 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-53
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked why the government could not raise the issue on remand. He questioned the sua sponte order to show cause.
Justice Thomas asked why the provision is not controlled by Lindahl. He referenced the specific statutory provision at issue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 47-53 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 47-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-21
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of appellate jurisdiction. It determines whether courts can dismiss cases based on missed deadlines. The outcome affects how federal courts handle procedural rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-51 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-53 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-53
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 10, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 47-53 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 47-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-51 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-53 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 31-51 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 31-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-53 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-53
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.