Supreme Court Backs Bankruptcy Trustee In Time-Limited Void Challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that federal courts must enforce a time limit when parties attempt to overturn judgments as void under federal procedural rules, resolving a long-standing disagreement among lower courts and reinforcing the importance of finality in the judicial system.
In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited Inc. v. Burton, the justices upheld a 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, concluding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) requires motions to vacate judgments—including those alleged to be void—to be filed within a “reasonable time.”
The dispute originated when Coney Island Auto Parts, a company based in the Brooklyn area, sought to undo a default judgment entered against it in 2015, arguing it had never been properly served. Both the bankruptcy court and a federal district court rejected the challenge as untimely, a determination the Sixth Circuit later affirmed.
Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito underscored that the plain language of Rule 60(c)(1) leaves no room for exempting void-judgment claims from timing requirements.
“The rule’s text and structure,” the Court concluded, make clear that motions under Rule 60(b) must be brought within a reasonable time, even when a party asserts the judgment is void.
The decision puts an end to a circuit split. While most federal appeals courts had previously allowed void-judgment challenges without any time limit—reasoning that a void judgment is legally null from the outset—the Sixth Circuit had taken the minority view that such challenges must still be pursued promptly.
During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed that determining whether a judgment is truly void can itself be a complicated inquiry, and the Court’s ruling preserves mechanisms that balance fairness against the legal system’s need for closure.
The ruling is expected to shape civil litigation nationwide by reaffirming that procedural deadlines matter, even when serious jurisdictional defects are alleged.
Separately, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled confidence that the Supreme Court will not overturn President Donald J. Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, suggesting a decision could come as soon as this week.
“I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy,” Bessent said during an appearance on Meet the Press. “They did not overrule Obamacare. I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos.”
Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of the Affordable Care Act allowing a federal panel to recommend preventive services insurers must cover at no cost, CNBC reported.
Bessent’s comments followed President Trump’s announcement of a new round of tariffs targeting European goods unless, as he put it, “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
While Trump did not specify the statute he is invoking, the move mirrors earlier “liberation day” tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
According to the president, tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland will begin at 10 percent on Feb. 1 and rise to 25 percent on June 1.
Trump argued that only the United States possesses the strategic capability to secure Greenland and counter expanding geopolitical threats in the Arctic.
“We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs, or any other forms of remuneration,” Trump wrote. “Now, after centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back.”
The tariffs will apply not only to Denmark but also to Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—nations that have pledged military deployments to Greenland in support of Danish sovereignty.
Trump warned that those moves have dangerously escalated tensions.
“This is a very dangerous situation for the safety, security, and survival of our planet,” he wrote. “These countries have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable.”