The question
Whether the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. Section 7703(b)(1) for appealing a Merit Systems Protection Board decision to the Federal Circuit is jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable tolling.
Harrow v. Department of Defense
What the Court decided
The Court held that the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. Section 7703(b)(1) is not jurisdictional. The Federal Circuit had denied Harrow's request to equitably toll his late appeal on the ground that the deadline was an unalterable jurisdictional requirement. That ground was wrong. Most time bars are nonjurisdictional even when stated in mandatory terms, a requirement counts as jurisdictional only when Congress clearly states that it is, and no language in Section 7703(b)(1) or in the Federal Circuit's jurisdictional statute makes this deadline jurisdictional.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Kagan, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
A procedural requirement is treated as jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that it is, and most time bars are nonjurisdictional even when framed in mandatory and emphatic terms. Section 7703(b)(1) says an appeal shall be filed within 60 days, but its mandatory phrasing does not speak to the court's jurisdiction. The Government's reliance on 28 U.S.C. Section 1295(a)(9), which grants the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over appeals pursuant to Section 7703(b)(1), fails because pursuant to functions as a synonym for under and identifies the basis for a filing without requiring full compliance with every requirement.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that Section 7703(b)(1)'s 60-day filing deadline is not jurisdictional.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Federal Circuit denied Harrow's request for equitable tolling because it believed the deadline was an unalterable jurisdictional requirement.
Source: syllabus, Held
A procedural requirement is treated as jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that it is, and most time bars are nonjurisdictional even when framed in mandatory terms.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Government's argument based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1295(a)(9) failed because the phrase pursuant to functions as a synonym for under and does not require compliance with every requirement of Section 7703(b)(1).
Source: syllabus, Held
Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup