In a pivotal Supreme Court session on March 25, 2024, the justices examined the case of Harrow v. Department of Defense, focusing on critical issues surrounding claims processing rules and jurisdictional deadlines. The discussions highlighted the complexities of equitable tolling and the responsibilities of both the government and the courts in managing claims.

Central to the case was the argument that the government failed to raise a deadline issue regarding Amanda Choi's claim processing, which was instead brought up by the federal circuit court. This raised questions about whether a court can independently address mandatory claims processing rules without the opposing party's input. The attorney representing Mr. Harrow emphasized that the government did not file a brief on this matter after the federal circuit issued an order to show cause, suggesting a potential forfeiture of their right to contest the claim.

The justices explored the implications of a long-standing precedent in the federal circuit that treats filing deadlines as jurisdictional, thus not subject to equitable tolling. The attorney argued that if the Supreme Court were to determine that the deadline is non-jurisdictional, it could open the door for Mr. Harrow to receive relief, potentially allowing him to proceed with his appeal after over a decade of litigation.

The discussion also touched on the government's resistance to Mr. Harrow's claim, which has been pending for seven years, with five of those years attributed to the government's inability to convene a quorum. This raised broader questions about the efficiency and responsiveness of government processes in handling claims.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for how claims are processed and the extent to which courts can intervene in jurisdictional matters. The justices are expected to provide clarity on these issues, which could reshape the landscape of claims processing within the Department of Defense and beyond.