Beware of judges bearing deadlines
YEsterday, in Bowles v. Russell, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Thomas, held to its longstanding rule that deadlines to perfect appeals are jurisdictional.
The district court had given an extension of the deadline to file an appeal of a denial of a petition for habeas. The rules permit a 14 day extension, but the deadline for filing in the district court’s order granting an extension was for 17 days. The habeas petitioner filed his appeal on the 16th day. The 6th Circuit dismissed the appeal and the Supreme’s affirmed.
Such a decision is not generally controversial, as the rule is, indeed, a long-honored one. Moreover, the time limitations are set by statute, 28 U.S.C. 2107, as well as by court rule. FRAP 4. A statutory deadline has jurisdictional significance.
However, Souter’s dissent points out the Court’s recent attempts to clarify mandatory and nonmandatory jurisdictional requirements. Only last year, the Court had held—unanimously—that a statutory time limitation has jurisdictional significance only if Congress designates the limitation as jurisdictional. Arbaugh v.Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 520 (2006). Souter states:
In ruling that Bowles cannot depend on the word of a District Court Judge, the Court demonstrates that no one may depend on the recent, repeated, and unanimous statements of all participating Justices of this Court.
Souter also notes the irony that the recent decisions are “jettisoned in a ruling for which the leading justification is stare decisis." Souter argues that a nonmandatory jurisdictional requirement would allow the Court to give equitable relief in”bait and switch” situations like that presented here.
