In a recent split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to consider the timeliness of cases even though the U.S. government may have waived the issue, John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 750 (U.S. 2008)

 

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling handed down on Jan. 8, held that the Claims Court properly ignored the government’s waiver of the statute of limitations in an inverse condemnation lawsuit filed by John R. Sand & Gravel Co. The gravel company filed the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in the Claims Court, contending that the government took the property John R. leases by constructing a fence along the property as part of a landfill cleanup process. The government had placed and removed the fences a number of times between 1992 and 2002 after John R. had complained about its inability to properly use the property for its sand and gravel operations. 

 

The Claims Court held that the taking was not compensable, though, because John R. failed to prevent “the continuations of landfilling activities on its leasehold after its lease began in 1969.” John R. Sand appealed to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which vacated and remanded for dismissal in a split decision, ruling that the complaint was time-barred.

 

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, which held that the Federal Circuit was correct to ignore the federal government’s waiver and to address whether John R. Sand & Gravel Co.’s complaint was timely filed based on previous rulings by the Supreme Court.

 

“To overturn a decision settling one such matter simply because we might believe that decision is no longer ‘right’ would inevitably reflect a willingness to reconsider others. And that willingness could itself threaten to substitute disruption, confusion, and uncertainty for necessary legal stability. We have not found here any factors that might overcome these considerations,” the majority said.

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito joined in the majority opinion.

 

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, stated that “[w]ith respect to provisions as common as time limitations, Congress, in enacting statutes, and judges, in applying them, ought to be able to rely upon a background rule of considerable clarity. Irwin announced such a rule, and I would apply that rule to the case before us.”

 

Justice Ginsburg also filed a dissenting opinion of her own, saying that “[a]fter today’s decision, one will need a crystal ball to predict when this Court will reject, and when it will cling to, its prior decisions interpreting legislative texts.”