United States v. Kwai Fun Wong

**Question presented** Do the two deadlines in the Federal Tort Claims Act (the FTCA) – (1) filing a claim with the proper federal agency within two years and, if the agency denies it, suing in federal court within six months – operate as “jurisdictional” bars that a court cannot extend, or can a court apply *equitable tolling* (i.e., pause the clock) when the claimant has a good reason for missing the deadline? **Holding** The Supreme Court held that the FTCA’s time limits are *not* jurisdictional; they may be equitably tolled. In other words, a court can extend the filing periods if the claimant showed reasonable diligence and a justifiable reason for the delay. **Core reasoning (plain English)** 1. **What counts as “jurisdictional”?** The Court uses a framework from its earlier case *Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs*. A statute is jurisdictional only when Congress says so in clear, unmistakable language. If Congress does not make that clear statement, the deadline is treated like an ordinary statute of limitations that can be flexibly applied. 2. **Did Congress make a clear statement?** The FTCA’s text simply says a claim “shall be forever barred” if the deadlines are missed. The Court says that wording was common in many statutes of that era and does not, by itself, make the deadline a jurisdictional bar. The law that actually gives the courts power to hear FTCA cases (28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)) does not tie that power to meeting the time limits. The legislative history also does not show that Congress intended the deadlines to be jurisdictional. 3. **Therefore, the deadlines are ordinary limits** that can be tolled when fairness requires it. The Court noted that both plaintiffs (Wong and June) had acted diligently—Wong tried to amend her complaint before the six‑month deadline, and June discovered the agency’s concealment only after the two‑year filing period had passed. Because they were not careless, the Court said the courts may extend the time bars. **Majority opinion** – Justice Kagan wrote for a five‑justice majority (joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor). The majority emphasized that without a “clear statement” from Congress, the deadlines are not jurisdictional and can be tolled under equitable principles. **Dissenting opinion** – Justice Alito filed a dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The dissent argued that the FTCA’s language (“shall be forever barred”) and the fact that the deadlines are conditions on the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity show that Congress intended these limits to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the dissent said the courts should not be allowed to extend them. **Bottom line** – The Court decided that the FTCA’s filing deadlines can be stretched in appropriate cases, rejecting the government’s claim that the limits are absolute jurisdictional bars.