ECC INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTORS, LLC v.
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510 (2006)). In-
creasingly, “the Court has undertaken to ward off profli-
gate use of the term.” Fort Bend Cnty., Tex. v. Davis, 139
S. Ct. 1843, 1848 (2019) (cleaned up) (quoting Sebelius v.
Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145, 153 (2013)). Properly
construed, “the word ‘jurisdictional’ is generally reserved
for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases a court
may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the per-
sons over whom the court may exercise adjudicatory au-
thority (personal jurisdiction).” Id. These rules are
distinct from “nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules,
which ‘seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by
requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at
certain specified times.’” Id. at 1849 (quoting Henderson v.
Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 435 (2011)).
“Characterizing a rule as a limit on subject-matter ju-
risdiction ‘renders it unique in our adversarial system.’”
Id. (quoting Auburn, 568 U.S. at 153). “Harsh conse-
quences attend the jurisdictional brand.” Id. (cleaned up).
As the Supreme Court has noted, “[j]urisdictional rules
may also result in the waste of judicial resources and may
unfairly prejudice litigants.” Henderson, 562 U.S. at 434.
Because objections to subject-matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time, “a party, after losing at trial, may move
to dismiss the case because the trial court lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 434–35. “Indeed, a party may
raise such an objection even if the party had previously
acknowledged the trial court’s jurisdiction. And if the trial
court lacked jurisdiction, many months of work on the part
of the attorneys and the court may be wasted.” Id. at 435.
Further, “courts must enforce jurisdictional rules sua
sponte, even in the face of a litigant’s forfeiture or waiver.”
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1112 (2023).
“Because the consequences that attach to the jurisdic-
tional label may be so drastic,” the Supreme Court has
“urged that a rule should not be referred to as jurisdictional
unless it governs a court’s adjudicatory capacity.”
Case: 21-2323 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 08/22/2023