Why It Matters
Congress holds broad authority to set, shorten, or extend civil lawsuit filing deadlines, but that power has constitutional limits that vary depending on whether the claim is criminal or civil, according to a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The report covers the default rules courts apply when Congress is silent, the tradeoffs between the two types of time limits, and the constitutional guardrails on changing existing periods.
For Congress, the practical stakes center on drafting choices: whether to use a limitations period or a repose period, when to start the clock, how long to run it, and whether to enumerate exceptions.
The Big Picture
The report draws a foundational distinction from CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (2014): a statute of limitations runs from when a claim accrues, while a statute of repose runs from the defendant's last culpable act and can bar suit before a plaintiff suffers any injury.
In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. 799 (2024), the Court held that a facial claim under the Administrative Procedure Act accrues when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action, even if that injury occurs after the period would otherwise run from the date of the challenged action.
On changing existing time limits, the Ex Post Facto Clause bars Congress from reviving a criminal statute of limitations after it has already run, though an unexpired criminal period may be extended. Civil changes face a more deferential standard, but Stewart v. Keyes, 295 U.S. 403 (1935), held that repealing a bar already complete on a property claim violates due process.
The report also notes that enumerating specific exceptions, such as an express fraud discovery rule, may foreclose courts from recognizing additional implied exceptions, and that Congress can reduce uncertainty by stating expressly whether a discovery rule applies.
The Bottom Line
For most federal statutes enacted after 1990 that lack an explicit limitations provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) sets a default four-year limitations period that courts may apply, though Congress can depart from that default through legislation.
The Supreme Court held in Corner Post that a facial Administrative Procedure Act claim accrues when a plaintiff is injured by final agency action, even if that injury occurs after the limitations period would otherwise run from the challenged action.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article
