United States Supreme Court Decision Proves That Appellate Practice Is A Minefield Best Navigated By Savvy Appellate Practitioners

January 22, 2018 / Writing and Speaking


The recent unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, __ U.S.__ (No. 16-58, Nov. 8 2017), illustrates once again the perilous nature of appellate practice, for in this decision the Supreme Court took to task experienced federal appellate jurists for failing “to grasp the distinction” “between jurisdictional appeal filing deadlines and mandatory claim-processing rules.”


Petitioner Hamer sued respondents for employment discrimination. Respondents obtained summary judgment against Hamer on September 14, 2015, making Hamer’s notice of appeal due by October 14, 2015. On October 8, 2015, before the 30-day notice of appeal deadline was about to expire, Hamer’s counsel filed two motions-one to withdraw as counsel and another for a two-month extension of time to file the notice of appeal so that Hamer could find new counsel. The District Court granted both motions and extended Hamer’s notice of appeal time from October 14, 2015 to December 14, 2015. The District Court’s extension order, however, contravened Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) which limited such extensions of time to file a notice of appeal to only 30 days in all cases. Respondents did not object to this 60-day extension of time.

Hamer appealed within the 60-day extension. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit questioned its own jurisdiction raising the time limit found in FRAP Rule 4(a)(5)(C). The Seventh Circuit found that this time limit of an additional 30 days to file a notice of appeal was a jurisdictional time limit. In other words, Hamer was entitled to an extension of only an additional 30 days, not 60 days and thus Hamer’s appeal filed outside this 30-day time limit deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

SCOTUS Reverses

On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the Seventh Circuit, like other Circuits, “tripped over” the holding in prior decisional law that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional. According to the Court, time periods are jurisdictional “only if Congress sets the time,” because “only Congress may determine a lower federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” A time limit not set by Congress ranks as only a “mandatory claims processing rule”

The Court held that this distinction was crucial since the failure to comply with a jurisdictional time period deprives a Court of Appeals with adjudicatory authority over an appeal. Mandatory claim-processing rules though “are less stern.” According to the Court, while such rules must be enforced, they can be waived or forfeited, unlike a jurisdictional rule which is subject to no such waiver or forfeiture.

The Court found that FRAP Rule 4(a)(5)(C) limiting extensions of time to file a notice of appeal in all cases to just 30 days was only a claims-processing rule and not a jurisdictional time period. The Court based this conclusion on the application of 28 U.S.C. 2107 which limits an extension of time to file a notice of appeal to only those cases where the appellant lacked notice of the entry of judgment. According to the Court, “[f]or other cases, the statute does not say how long an extension may run.” Accordingly FRAP Rule 4(a)(5)(C) prescribing a 30-day extension of time to all cases did not have a statutory basis, and could not be treated as a jurisdictional time period.

In remanding the case for further consideration, the Court noted that certain issues regarding the enforcement of FRAP Rule 4(a)(5) (C) were unaddressed and presumably would be addressed upon remand:

  • whether respondents’ failure to raise any objection in the District Court to the overlong time extension, by itself, effected a forfeiture;
  • whether respondents could gain review of the District Court’s time extension only by filing their own appeal notice, and
  • whether equitable considerations may occasion an exception to Rule 4(a)(5) (C)’s time constraint.

Practice Pointer: As this decision illustrates, preserving appellate rights from either the standpoint of an appellant or appellee requires not only a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules, but also the federal statutes conferring and prescribing jurisdiction and the cases interpreting those statutes and rules. Such appellate work should only be handled by trained and experienced appellate advocates and not by trial counsel or the occasional appellate lawyer. Further, as shown by the Court’s remand order, appellate practitioners are usually best qualified to prevent a forfeiture of objections to violations of appellate rules . . . savvy appellate counsel here would have undoubtedly objected to the extension of time of 60 days as a violation of FRAP Rule 4(a) (5)(C), and if those objections were overruled, savvy appellate counsel would have filed a notice of appeal from the order to preserve the right to contest that order on appeal.

  • Chicago

    Illinois 60603

    10 South LaSalle Street

    Chicago, Illinois 60603

    T: 312.855.1010 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick

  • New York

    New York 10005

    28 Liberty Street 39th Floor

    New York, New York 10005

    T: 212.805.3900 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 212.805.3939 Office Managing Partner: Carl M. Perri

  • Mission Viejo

    California 92691

    27285 Las Ramblas

    Suite 200

    Mission Viejo, California 92691

    T: 949.260.3100 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 949.260.3190 Office Managing Partner: Ian R. Feldman

  • Florham Park

    New Jersey 07932

    100 Campus Drive

    Florham Park, New Jersey 07932

    T: 973.410.4130 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 973.410.4169 Office Managing Partner: Carl M. Perri

  • Michigan City

    Indiana 46360

    200 Commerce Square

    Michigan City, Indiana 46360

    T: 219.262.6106 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partners: Paige M. Neel, Kimbley A. Kearney

  • Milwaukee

    Wisconsin 53202

    250 E. Wisconsin Avenue

    Suite 1800

    Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

    T: 414.279.5525 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: James M. Weck

  • Stamford

    Connecticut 06902

    68 Southfield Avenue

    2 Stamford Landing Suite 100

    Stamford, Connecticut 06902

    T: 203.921.0303 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 212.805.3939 Office Managing Partner: Matthew J. Van Dusen

  • Tampa

    Florida 33609

    4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, One Urban Center

    Suite 600

    Tampa, Florida 33609

    T: 813.509.2578 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick

  • San Francisco

    California 94111

    100 Pine Street

    Suite 1250

    San Francisco, California 94111

    T: 415.287.2744 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 949.260.3190 Office Managing Partner: Ian R. Feldman

  • Houston

    Texas 77019

    2929 Allen Parkway

    American General Center, Suite 200

    Houston, Texas 77019

    T: 346.229.4612 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Ramy P. Elmasri

  • Dallas

    Texas 75201

    325 N. Saint Paul Street

    Suite 3100

    Dallas, Texas 75201

    T: 469.942.8635 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Ramy P. Elmasri

  • Boca Raton

    Florida 33434

    7777 Glades Road

    Suite 405

    Boca Raton, Florida 33434

    T: 561.765.5305 TF: 800.826.3505 F: 312.606.7777 Office Managing Partner: Dennis D. Fitzpatrick