Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
It is always good to file or submit petitions and pleadings on time. Sometimes the due date can be complicated.
Let’s say your due date falls on a Sunday? A federal holiday? Or??? Here is a thought from friend and colleague Dew Process.
CAAF, in its decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (CAAF), cert. denied 558 U.S. 969 (2009). The majority in Rodriguez held that the 60 day time-limit in Article 67(b), UCMJ, was jurisdictional and rejected the long-standing precedent of this Court essentially adopting the “equitable tolling” principle. The Rodriguez majority based its decision on Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), a federal civil appeal in a habeas corpus action.
Yesterday, a unanimous SCOTUS added some clarity to the issue of jurisdiction vs. “claim-processing” rule, calling into question the viability of the rationale inRodriguez, in Hammer v. Neighborhood Housing Serv. Of Chicago,
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-658_p86b.pdf
Justice Ginsburg begins:
This case presents a question of time, specifically, time to file a notice of appeal from a district court’s judgment.
In Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 210–213 (2007), this Court clarified that an appeal filing deadline prescribed by
statute will be regarded as “jurisdictional,” meaning that late filing of the appeal notice necessitates dismissal of the
appeal. But a time limit prescribed only in a court-made rule, Bowles acknowledged, is not jurisdictional; it is, instead, a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to forfeiture if not properly raised by the appellee. Ibid.; Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 456 (2004). Because the Court of Appeals held jurisdictional a time limit specified in a rule, not in a statute, 835 F. 3d 761, 763 (CA7 2016), we vacate that court’s judgment dismissing the appeal.