Harrow v. Department of Defense

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the 60-day deadline for federal employees to appeal decisions from the Merit Systems Protection Board is not a strict jurisdictional (absolute power of the court) limit. The Court found that because Congress did not clearly state the deadline was a hard requirement for the court to hear the case, it can be treated as a flexible procedural rule. This allows courts to consider 'equitable tolling,' which lets judges excuse late filings if there is a very good reason for the delay.

This decision makes it easier for federal workers to have their day in court even if they miss a deadline due to circumstances beyond their control. For example, a worker who misses a notice because the government took five years to rule on their case and used an old email address can now ask for an exception. It prevents a simple paperwork delay from permanently blocking a person's right to challenge a job-related decision.

The Supreme Court has a high bar for deciding whether a deadline is 'jurisdictional,' meaning it cannot be changed or excused by a judge. Generally, the Court treats time limits as procedural rules unless Congress explicitly says the court loses its authority if the deadline is missed. This case continues a trend of the Court requiring clear language from lawmakers before stripping judges of the power to hear late-filed appeals.

The Court ruled 9-0 to vacate the lower court's decision, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the opinion for a unanimous bench.

“The 60-day limit, like most filing deadlines, is not jurisdictional.”

The Supreme Court ruled that a 60-day appeal deadline for federal workers is a flexible rule rather than an absolute barrier to justice.

The case now returns to the lower court to determine if Stuart Harrow’s specific situation justifies an exception to the 60-day rule. Other federal employees who missed similar deadlines may now attempt to revive their cases if they can show extraordinary circumstances caused their delay. Agencies and courts will have to adjust their procedures to account for potential late filings that were previously automatically rejected.

Harrow missed a 60-day deadline to appeal a furlough decision because he never received the email notification. The government argued the court had no power to hear his case because the deadline was absolute.

Employees can now argue for 'equitable tolling' (fairness-based extensions) if they miss a filing deadline. This ensures that technical errors or government delays do not automatically end a worker's legal challenge.

The Court applied a 'clear statement' rule, meaning a deadline is only jurisdictional if Congress explicitly says so. Since the statute did not mention the court's authority, it was ruled a procedural limit.

The case is vacated (canceled) and remanded (sent back) to the lower court. That court must now decide if Harrow's five-year wait and email issues qualify him for a deadline extension.

The Court continues to move away from treating every deadline as a strict jurisdictional requirement. It prefers to give judges the flexibility to handle cases fairly unless Congress specifically forbids it.