Interpreting Federal Statutes of Limitations

Abstract

This article provides an interpretative approach for determining whether Congress intended to include any equitable exceptions to the running of a federal statute of limitations. In short, the interpretative approach provides that when a statute is silent regarding equitable exceptions, a court can presume Congress intended to incorporate those exceptions that were generally-recognized at the common law at the time of the statute’s enactment. On the other hand, if an exception was not generally-recognized at common law, a court can presume Congress did not intend to incorporate the exception by silence. Whichever presumption applies, it can be overcome if there is relevant and reliable evidence of Congressional intent regarding the exception in the language of the statute, its legislative history, or its purposes. In describing and applying this interpretive approach, the article finds that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have incorporated equitable exceptions into many federal statutes even when there was no reliable basis to infer that Congress intended those exceptions to apply. This is particularly true with respect to the discovery rule of accrual, which the article shows had a questionable interpretive origin, yet has been reflexively incorporated into many federal statutes of limitations. In addition to being repeatedly cited in a leading treatise on statutory interpretation, the article has been cited in federal and state appellate opinions and quoted in a Supreme Court dissenting opinion.

Keywords: statutes of limitations, statutory construction

JEL Classification: K10, K40, K41