Bowe v. United States · ¶41

The dissent also argues that this clear-indication requirement must be mistaken because it is not derived from principles of constitutional avoidance. Constitutional avoidance, however, is not the only possible source of a rule like Cas tro's. This Court also has required Congress to speak clearly in other contexts when Congress wishes to do something that the Constitution allows. For example, the Court will interpret a “procedural requirement as jurisdictional only if Congress `clearly states' that it is.” Boechler v. Com missioner, 596 U. S. 199, 203 (2022). In that context, “Congress need not `incant magic words,' but the `traditional tools of statutory construction must plainly show that Congress imbued a procedural bar with jurisdictional consequences.' ” Ibid. (citation omitted). Requiring this showing is driven by the harsh consequences of finding a procedural require- ment…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.