Supreme Court of the United States
Brock v. Pierce County
May 19, 1986476 U.S. 253
Summary
Justice Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion holding that CETA’s 120-day deadline does not deprive the Secretary of Labor of authority to recover misspent funds after the deadline expires. The mandatory word “shall” alone does not establish that consequence, and the statutory structure and legislative history indicate that Congress intended to expedite enforcement rather than extinguish enforcement authority. The implementing regulations likewise impose no jurisdictional bar, and courts lack authority to create a variable limitations period based on the dispute’s complexity or the recipient’s culpability. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment. There were no separate opinions.
Holding
- Whether missing CETA’s 120-day deadline extinguishes the Secretary’s enforcement authority.. The Secretary retains authority to recover misspent CETA funds after the 120-day deadline expires.
- Whether the implementing regulations create a jurisdictional deadline.. The regulations do not bar the Secretary from acting after 120 days.
- Whether courts may fashion a variable limitations period from § 106(b).. Courts may not create a limitations period that varies with the complexity of the dispute or the recipient’s culpability.
Docket 85-385
Cited authorities
- 20 C.F.R. § 676.88
- 5 U.S.C. §§701-706
- 92 Stat. 1926
- 29 U.S.C. § 816
- 29 U.S.C. §801
- 29 U.S.C. § 816
- 18 U.S.C. § 665
- 29 U.S.C. § 836
Cited by
- Leiticia Castaneda v. Steve Souza
- Clayton Richard Gordon v. Jeh Charles…
- The State of Texas v. Earl Bruce Roland
- Bruecher Foundation Services, Inc. v. United States
- Michael E. Nestor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Connally v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
- Robert O’brien, Petitioner, Appellant v. Larry E. Dubois, Respondent, Appellee
- United States of America, Appellee v. Christopher Meade, Defendant, Appellant