Manuel Jose Lozano v. Diana Lucia Montoya Alvarez
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the Second Circuit’s ruling: the Convention’s one-year period cannot be paused through equitable tolling.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · March 5, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The dispute was whether the Hague Convention’s one-year period for seeking a child’s return could be paused when one parent concealed the child’s whereabouts.
- Who it affects
- A parent’s concealment of a child’s whereabouts does not pause the one-year period for seeking the child’s return under the Convention.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the Second Circuit that the period cannot be extended through equitable tolling (a rule that pauses a legal deadline).
Article 12 of the Hague Convention sets a one-year period for seeking a child’s return.
Question presented
Does the one-year statute of limitations on a petition to return an abducted child under the Hague Convention remain in effect when one parent has deliberately concealed the child's whereabouts from the other parent?
What the Court decided
Holding
Article 12’s 1-year period is not subject to equitable tolling. 697 F. 3d 41, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
- Majority author
- Clarence Thomas
What's next
The Supreme Court’s review is over, and the Second Circuit’s ruling remains in place.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Lozano
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.