Henderson v. Shinseki (09-1036)

argument 09-1036

Henderson v. Shinseki

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Federal Circuit’s error regarding the jurisdictional deadline in Henderson v. Shinseki?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We'll hear argument first this morning in case zero nine ten thirty six, Henderson versus Shinesky. Ms. Black?

Courtney Rae Hudson 0:14

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Federal Circuit's decision in this case forecloses judicial review when the very disability for which a veteran seeks benefits prevents the veteran from filing a timely appeal with the veterans court. That decision is wrong and for three reasons the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the deadline at issue in this case is jurisdictional. First. The statute contains no clear indication that the deadline is jurisdictional. Rather the text and structure point away from a jurisdictional reading. Second, A deadline that applies to disabled and largely uncounselled veterans seeking their first day in court. is not the type of deadline that Congress would be expected to rank as jurisdictional.

Courtney Rae Hudson 1:12

And third A jurisdictional reading would render some of the most disabled of veterans the least likely to obtain benefits. and would treat veterans worse off than almost all litigants in our federal system.

Unknown 1:28

Ms Platch, you do have a substantial hurdle to contend with in This court's decision in Bowlesby Russell which seemed to say if you have a time limit And it's statutory Mm. It is mandatory and jurisdictional. So here we have a a time limit set by statute, not by rule. And um Why doesn't why isn't that dispositive?

Courtney Rae Hudson 1:59

Because neither this court's decision in Bowls nor any other decision by this court holds that this type of appeal from a proclaimant and non adversarial proceeding to a court of first review Clearly speaks in jurisdictional terms, notwithstanding the lack of a jurisdictional label.

Unknown 2:21

I mean you can always find some distinction in the next case, and I thought the object of Bowles was to say if it's a If it's a limit on appeal, it's jurisdictional. That would and that's I gather what the uh Federal Circuit took it to mean and I would have done that if I was down there probably.

Courtney Rae Hudson 2:40

I mean I can understand why maybe the Federal Circuit did it because of the one statement that the Court I think took out of context, but this Court's decision in Bowles didn't purport to extend to any statute, no matter what the statute said or what the context it arose in, and the most closely analogous context of an appeal of agency action to a court of first review is a social security context. And even if you don't think that that context is directly on point then the historical backdrop at most would be inconclusive and that hardly would rise from

Unknown 3:13

doesn't the social security context uh it doesn't speak of an appeal, does it? It talks of a civil action. That's right. But the statute does not call it an appeal. It calls it bringing a civil action to challenge the decision.

Courtney Rae Hudson 3:33

There's nothing inherently jurisdictional about the word appeal. And Justice Scalia, if Congress that passed this statute wanted to pick up on the jurisdictional rule under twenty eight USC twenty one oh seven, presumably it would have written a statute that looks something like that statute, with the safety valves. Of course, when a all litigants, civil litigants who are appealing a district court judgment to a Court of Appeals, uh they have a jurisdictional deadline, but the district court can extend it for good cause or excusable neglect. or when uh the the the party lacks notice of an adverse judgment, or importantly, the federal rules of appellate procedure cure the situation when a litigant timely files his appeal but does so in the wrong form.

Courtney Rae Hudson 4:18

In this statute, Congress knew how to incorporate the jurisdictional rule of bowls. It did so in a separate provision of the statute in 7292A. It said when a litigant wants to go from the Veterans Court and appeal that decision to the Federal Circuit, the litigant has to follow the time and the manner prescribed for appealing district court judgments to Court of Appeals.

Unknown 4:41

And that is jurisdictional seventy two ninety two.

Courtney Rae Hudson 4:44

Yes, yes. And interestingly it also goes on to say if you want to appeal to this court, you have to apply for Sir Shorori.