The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled to allow a lawsuit to proceed against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for allegedly altering the terms of access to a road that intersects the property of two Montana landowners, reversing the decision by two lower courts.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled in the case Wilkins v. United States the 12-year statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act (QTA) did not meet the standard to be jurisdictional. The QTA allows challenges to the U.S.’ rights in real property
“Then, as now, ‘none of our decisions establishe(d)’ that the time limit was jurisdictional, so there was no definitive judicial interpretation to which Congress could acquiesce,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. “The mere existence of a decision employing the term jurisdiction without elaboration does not show Congress adopted that view. Nor can the Government’s handful of lower court opinions stand in for a ruling of this court, especially where some of these decisions contain only fleeting references to jurisdiction,” Sotomayor wrote.
In addition to Sotomayor, Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson were in the majority.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)—which argued on behalf of landowners Larry “Wil” Wilkins and Jane Stanton—applauded the decision, calling it a victory for private landowners to defend their rights in federal court.
“The decision also reaffirms that property rights are indeed among the most important civil rights that Americans have, deserving equal status among all other constitutional protections and a full-throated defense in federal courts,” Steven Anderson, PLF president and CEO, said in a statement. “We’re thrilled that our clients can finally challenge the Forest Service’s unlawful land grab and that courthouse doors will open for future landowners to take on the federal government.”
Background
Wilkins and Stanton own property next to Robbins Gulch Road in Ravalli County, MT, by the Bitterroot National Forest.
According to court documents, before Wilkins and Stanton purchased the property, an easement was granted to USFS in 1962 for use only by the agency “and its assigns.” The easement also expressly stated as a condition that the existing road is to be “reconstructed,” “patrolled” and “maintained.” A letter accompanying the easement stated the purpose of the road was for timber harvest. The easement did not grant USFS the right to declare that the easement was open to the public.
PLF stated that in 2006, USFS posted a sign along the road, effectively inviting the public to use the road despite a better-maintained road a few miles from Wilkins and Stanton’s property. The increase in public use resulted in traffic hazards, noise, fire hazards, verbal abuse and illegal hunting with Wilkins’ cat being shot (the cat survived).
Wilkins, a military veteran, purchased the property in 2004 for its peace and quiet and to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder. Stanton purchased the property in 1991 with her husband and became the sole owner in 2016.
Despite efforts by Wilkins to rectify the situation and assurances from USFS that everything would be fixed with a new study, the agency determined the road status as open to the public. An email in 2018 from USFS to another landowner said, “The road is open to the public from the highway to the forest. Since the easement is 60 feet in width, people may legally park along the edge of the road.”
In 2018, Wilkins and Stanton filed a complaint against the federal government under the QTA, contending that the government exceeded the scope of the easement by opening the road to the public.
The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because QTA’s statute of limitations was jurisdictional and had expired. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, citing previous decisions by the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS declaring, “The QTA’s statute of limitations was dispositive here, even though for other statutes the Supreme Court recently set forth a seemingly different framework for assessing whether a statute of limitations was jurisdictional.”
The suit was appealed to SCOTUS in 2022 on the merit that the district court’s treatment of the statute of limitations as jurisdictional and not as a claim-processing rule “subjected the landowners to different standards for resolving the motion to dismiss, allowing the court to dismiss the case without holding a hearing to determine and resolve disputed facts.”
The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) filed a friend of the court brief stating the organization has an interest in the case as the QTA’s statute of limitations fails to meet the requirement to be jurisdictional and the text and content suggests it is a claim-processing rule. NFIB stated whether QTA is a claim-processing rule or jurisdictional will impact property owners, especially in cases of private property owners versus the government.
Beth Milito, executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center, commended SCOTUS’ decision, stating, “Small business property owners will greatly benefit from today’s Supreme Court decision. The court reinforced the importance of property rights and the balance between the government and property owners. We are encouraged by today’s decision.”
The case has been remanded back to the lower court. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
