On January 25, 2016, in Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. U.S., the US Supreme Court held that equitable tolling requires a party to satisfy two distinct elements: diligent pursuit of its rights and extraordinary circumstances beyond its control preventing timely filing. Because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the second requirement, its claims were untimely. ( (Jan. 25, 2016)).

The plaintiff, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin (the Tribe), entered into several contracts with federal agencies. The Tribe later brought administrative proceedings alleging that the government had breached these contracts. The administrative officer denied the Tribe's claims for some of the contracts because the Tribe had failed to start the administrative proceedings within the six-year statute of limitations set by the governing statutes.

The Tribe challenged the denials in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the limitations period should have been tolled both because of an earlier putative class action by another tribe and for equitable reasons. The district court initially dismissed on the grounds that the limitations period was jurisdictional. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that the limitations period was not jurisdictional but that the Tribe was not entitled to class action tolling. The DC Circuit remanded to determine the Tribe's eligibility for equitable tolling.

On remand, the district court determined that the Tribe was ineligible for equitable tolling because its stated reasons for failing to present timely claims did not amount to extraordinary circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances beyond a party's control. This ruling created a split with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that similar circumstances equitably tolled the limitations period for another tribe's contract claims against the government.

Resolving the split, the Supreme Court affirmed the DC Circuit and abrogated the Federal Circuit ruling. In doing so, the Supreme Court clarified the test it laid down in Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010). Under Holland, a litigant is entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations only if it shows:

The Supreme Court held that the two requirements are distinct elements, and a litigant must satisfy both to qualify for equitable tolling. The first element covers affairs within the litigant's control. The second element applies only where the circumstances that caused a litigant's delay are both extraordinary and beyond its control.

In this case, the Tribe failed to satisfy the second element. The Tribe's mistaken belief, based on earlier district court rulings, that it did not need to commence administrative proceedings before suing on the contracts was neither extraordinary nor beyond its control.

Litigants hoping to avail themselves of the doctrine of equitable tolling must be careful to satisfy two separate and distinct elements of proof, one of which is supported only by circumstances outside of the litigant's control.