The U.S Supreme Court has agreed to preside over another case concerning the critical distinction between jurisdictional deadlines, which result in courts unable to take on a case if unmet, and limitations period that are extendable or waivable. The justices have granted a review in Harrow v. Department of Defense on a Friday afternoon, the sole grant in a series of orders originating from the justices’ private conference held earlier that day.
The case involves Stuart Harrow, a federal government employee who contested his furlough in 2013. Following his appeal to a decision by an agency judge to the Merit Systems Protection Board, due to a scarcity of staff, the MSPB did not address the appeal for over five years. In this timeframe, Harrow changed his email address and, thus, was not aware of the MSPB’s decision to deny his appeal until the window to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had closed.
The Federal Circuit dismissed Harrow’s ensuing appeal that he filed shortly upon discovering the MSPB’s decision. In its explanation, the court of appeals acknowledged Harrow’s predicament, however, stated that as the deadline to file an appeal was jurisdictional, they did not possess the authority to hear his case.
Harrow subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which concurred to consider the matter on the very Friday afternoon. Forecasts suggest the case will most likely be disputed in the spring, with a judgement to be delivered by summer.
Additional orders from the justices’ meeting held on December 8 are expected to be released on Monday, December 11, at 9:30 a.m. Despite the December 8 assembly being the final regularly scheduled meeting in 2023, the justices, based on prior patterns, might issue a second set of grants from the concluding December conference a few days later, implying the potential for more such grants in the course of next week.
Further details about the case can be found in the original report.