United States v. Kwai Fun Wong

**Question presented** Do the filing deadlines in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) – the two‑year rule for filing a claim with the proper federal agency and the six‑month rule for filing a lawsuit after the agency’s denial – count as “jurisdictional” limits that a court cannot extend, or can they be subject to *equitable tolling* (a judicial shortcut that lets a deadline be paused when the claimant acted with reasonable diligence)? **Holding** The Supreme Court said the FTCA deadlines are **not jurisdictional**; therefore, a court may apply equitable tolling to them. In other words, the time limits can be extended in appropriate cases. **Why the Court reached that result** 1. **What makes a rule “jurisdictional”?** The Court follows the framework from *Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs*: a statutory time limit is jurisdictional only if Congress **clearly says** it is. The Court has repeatedly required an explicit statement, and without one it treats the limit as an ordinary “statute of limitations” (a regular deadline for filing a claim). 2. **Congress did not give a clear statement** The FTCA text (28 U.S.C. §2401(b)) simply says a claim is “forever barred” unless the two deadlines are met. It does **not** say the deadlines determine the court’s power to hear a case. The surrounding law shows that the jurisdictional grant for FTCA cases lives elsewhere (28 U.S.C. §1346(b)(1)), and that grant is not tied to meeting the deadlines. 3. **The “forever barred” language is ordinary** The phrase “shall be forever barred” appears in many statutes of limitations and has been treated as ordinary deadline language, not as a jurisdictional command. Earlier cases (e.g., *American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah*) reached the same conclusion. 4. **Even when a deadline is linked to a waiver of sovereign immunity, it can be tolled** The government argued the deadlines are part of the FTFA’s waiver of immunity, but *Irwin* already held that even such “conditional” time limits may be equitably tolled. Because the statutory text and history do not contain a clear congressional statement that the FTCA deadlines are jurisdictional, the Court concluded they are ordinary limits that courts may extend when fairness requires it. **How the justices split** *Majority opinion* – Justice **Kagan** wrote for a **5‑justice majority** joined by Justices **Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor**. *Dissenting opinion* – Justice **Alito** dissented, joined by **Chief Justice Roberts** and Justices **Scalia** and **Thomas**. The dissent argued that the deadlines should be treated as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable tolling. **Bottom line** – The Supreme Court said the FTCA’s filing deadlines can be paused for claimants who acted diligently, because the law does not label those deadlines as unchangeable jurisdictional bars.