Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Harrow v. Department of Defense

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Harrow v. Department of Defense
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: March 25, 2024
Decided: May 16, 2024
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Harrow v. Department of Defense is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 16, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 25, 2024. In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that Title 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)’s 60-day filing deadline for federal employees to petition a final decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Federal Circuit is not jurisdictional. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "The question presented is whether the 60-day deadline in Section 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that Title 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)’s 60-day filing deadline for federal employees to petition a final decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Federal Circuit is not jurisdictional.[1][3]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    When Stuart R. Harrow was furloughed in 2013, he appealed the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Harrow's appeal did not get reviewed for more than five years due to staffing shortages at the MSPB. During the time that he was waiting for a decision, Harrow changed his email address. The MSPB attempted to contact Harrow on May 11, 2022, to inform him that the furlough was affirmed and had sixty days to seek judicial review. Because Harrow changed his email address, he did not learn of the decision within the sixty-day deadline. He requested a time extension for his appeal on September 8, 2022. The MSPB denied Harrow's request for lack of jurisdiction.[4][5][6][7]

    When the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed Harrow's case on February 14, 2023, they dismissed Harrow's petition for review and held that deadline was a jurisdictional requirement and was “not subject to equitable tolling.”[4][5]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ The question presented is whether the 60-day deadline in Section 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional.

    [8]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[9]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that Title 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)’s 60-day filing deadline for federal employees to petition a final decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Federal Circuit is not jurisdictional. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1][3]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[3]

    “

    Having thus held that §7703(b)(1)’s deadline is non-jurisdictional, we encounter a newly raised back-up argument. Even if non-jurisdictional, the Government urges, the 60- day limit “would still not be subject to equitable tolling.” Brief for United States 42. In making that claim, the Government must contend with another high bar. “Because we do not understand Congress to alter” age-old procedural doctrines lightly, “nonjurisdictional [timing rules] are presumptively subject to equitable tolling.” Boechler, 596 U. S., at 209; see supra, at 3. The Government says it can rebut that presumption, but we are not the right court to now determine whether that is so. The Government did not broach the issue below; the Federal Circuit did not address it; and it is not included in the question presented. We therefore leave the matter (including any waiver issues involved) to the Federal Circuit on remand. And if that court finds equitable tolling available, it should decide whether, on the facts here, Harrow is entitled to that relief. For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 SCOTUSblog, "Harrow v. Department of Defense" accessed May 17, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-21 HARROW V. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, QUESTION PRESENTED," accessed January 2, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "STUART R. HARROW V. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE," accessed May 17, 2024
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "Harrow v. Dep't of Def.," February 14, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Oyez, "Harrow v. Department of Defense," accessed February 27, 2024
    6. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "STUART R. HARROW V. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," accessed February 27, 2024
    7. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "STUART R. HARROW V. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION," accessed February 27, 2024
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 25, 2024
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 25, 2024
    11. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Harrow_v._Department_of_Defense&oldid=9595804"